Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
NO DOCUMENT INSIDE THIS FOLDER/ENVELOPE
CS BUTTE ✓� P M C ® INVOICE t .. COUNTY 2729 Prospect Park Drive APR 19 2v;0 Suite 220 DEVELOPMENT } Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 _ • SERVICES Charles Thistlethwaite April 13,.2010 County of Butte 0 Invoice No: 31217 7 County Center Drive F -f rJAti M EAr pzeiri P(' Oroville, CA 95965.E `l�-7,g(2vj.0 Project Manager Scott Friend Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Professional•Services from February27, 2010 to March 26 2010 Billing.Group 004 Las'Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 02 Preparation of Draft MEA . Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 2/3/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 2/5/10 :50 110.00 :55.00 Friend, - Scott 2/8/10 1.00 11.0.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 2/9/10 1.50 110:00 165.00 Friend' Scott 2/10/10 1.50 110.00. 165.00 } Friend, Scott 2/11/10 1.00. 1.10.00 1.10.00. Friend, Scott 2/17/10 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 2/23/10 .50 '110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 3/4/10 50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 3/8/10 .50 110.00. .55.00 Friend; Scott 3/9/10 3.50 110.00 385.00 Assistant Planner - Granville, Dustin --'-2/8/10' 2.00 60.00 120.00 Totals 15.50 1,605.00 Total Labor 1,605.00 r Total this Labor Code $1,605.00 Labor"Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 2/5/10 .75 110.00 82.50 Serafini, Dino 2/2/10 4.50 110.00 495.00- 95.00Serafini, Serafini,Dino 2/3/10 7.00 110.00 770.00 Serafini, Dino 2/4/10 7.00 110.00 770.00 s, li N Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice31217 APPLICATIONS Totals 19.25 2,117.50 Total Labor .2,11 7.50 Total this Labor Code $2,117.50 Labor Code 05 Meetings & Presentations Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 2/24/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 3/24/10 1.50 110.00 165.00 Wong, Derek 3/9/10 1.25 110.00 137.50 Totals 3.75 412.50 Total Labor 412.50 Total this Labor Code $412.50 Labor Code 06 Modified/ Additional Task Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate . Senior Planner Friend; Scott 3/25/10 50 110.00 Totals .50 Total Labor Total this Labor Code Labor Code EXP Expenses Consultants Civil Engineering Consultant 3/26/10 Omni -Means, Ltd. Las Plumas Total Consultants Billing Limits Total Billings Limit Remaining Current 6,716.41. Amount 55.00 55.00 55.00 2,526.41 2,526:41 Total this Labor Code Prior To -Date 246,645:56 253,361.97 253,362.00 0.03 Total.this Billing Group $55.00 2,526.41 $2,526.41 $6,716.41 Page 2 f Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice 31217 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $6,716.41 Outstanding Invoices Number 30772 31006 Total Date Balance 2/16/10 17,847.50 3/16/10 1,910.00 19,757.50 Page 3 April 16,20-10 Claudia. Stuart, Principal Planner BUTTE COUNTY 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: LAS PLUMAS MEA FINAL INVOICE Dear Claudia: The purpose of this letter is to bring to youc'attention that the invoice. enclosed with this letter for March is the final invoice from PMC to the County for the Las Plumas MEA project and is inclusive of the work that is necessary to complete the revisions to the project traffic section, finance studies and MEA*text adjustments. Pursuant to my recent conversations with Tim about this, PMC acknowledges that we may be requested to attend one final project funding -group meeting following the completion of.the project and following our submittal of this. final invoice and PMC acknowledges that our attendance at this meeting will not be billed to the County. This letter also is intended to document that following the submittal of the final edits of the MEA to the County, all work on the project documents will be considered final and complete. Thank you again for your assistance, effort and participation in this effort. As always, we have appreciated the opportunity to work -with .the County and hope that this effort will be of value to you and the project funding group moving forward. If you have any questions about this letter or the final invoice, please don't. hesitate to contact me. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to work on this project with you. Sincerely,. Scott- Friend, AICP Project Manager Cc: Alannah Robinson; PMC Deborah DeBrunner, Butte County 140 Independence Cir, Suite C • Chico, CA 95973 • P: (530) 894-3469 • F: (530) 894-6459 �d fin..§. , 2/2/10 1/25/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 ' 5.00 60.00 300.00 9.50 795.00 Total this Labor Code WµS'1 ll• . Labor Code 06- Modified/ Additional Task Effort Professional Personnel PMC.® INVOICE Hours 2729 Prospect Park Drive "' Senior Planner . Suite 220 2 . Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 n l� v 2/1/1,0 .50 BUTTE 55.00 Serafini, Dino . COUNTY 5.00 110.00 Charles Thistlethwaite. MAR 9 20�o Serafini, Dino March 16, 2010 County of Butte 110.00 165.00 Invoice No: 31006 7 County. Center Drive DEVELOPMENT Oroville, CA 95965 SERVICES Petek, Joseph 1/25/10 1.75 60.00 Project Manager Scott Friend Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 4.00 Professional Services.from Janaa 30 ,2010 to"Fe`bruary 26 20'1'0 Billing Group 004 Las. Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project 12.75 Labor Code 05 Meetings & Presentations Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott' 1/27/10 2.50 110.00 275.00 Friend, Scott 1/28/10 1.00 110.00 1.10.00 Friend, Scott Assistant Planner Granville, Dustin Totals Total Labor , 2/2/10 1/25/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 ' 5.00 60.00 300.00 9.50 795.00 Total this Labor Code 795.00 $795.00 Labor Code 06- Modified/ Additional Task Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner . Friend, Scott 2/1/1,0 .50 110.00 55.00 Serafini, Dino . 2/1/10 5.00 110.00 550.00 Serafini, Dino 2/2/101, 1.50 110.00 165.00 Administrative Petek, Joseph 1/25/10 1.75 60.00 105.00 Petek, Joseph 1/27/10 4.00 60.00 240.00 Totals 12.75 1,115.00 Total Labor 4 1,115.00 Total. this Labor Code $1,115.00 Page 2 April 16, 2010 Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner BUTTE COUNTY 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: LAS PLUMAS MEA FINAL INVOICE Dear Claudia: The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention that the invoice .enclosed with this letter for March is the final invoice from PMC to the County for the Las Plumas MEA project and is inclusive of the work that is necessary to complete the revisions to the project traffic section, finance studies and MEA text adjustments. Pursuant to my recent conversations with Tim about this, PMC acknowledges that we may be requested to attend one final project funding group meeting following the completion of.the project and following our submittal of this. final invoice and PMC acknowledges that our attendance at this meeting will not be billed to the County. This letter also is intended to document that following the submittal of the final edits of the MEA to the County, all work on the project documents will be considered final and complete. Thank you again for your assistance, effort and participation in this effort. As always, we have appreciated the opportunity to work with the County and hope that this effort will be of value to you and the project funding group moving forward. If you have any questions about this letter or the final invoice, please don't. hesitate to contact me. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to work on this project with you. Sincerely, Scott Friend, AICP Project Manager Cc: Alannah Robinson, PMC Deborah DeBrunner, Butte County 140 Independence Cir, Suite C • Chico, CA 95973 • P: (530) 894-3469 • F: (530) 894-6459 C` .BUTTE PMC® INVOICE �' .. COUNTY 2729 Prospect Park Drive APR 1 9 w;9 Suite 220 DEVELOPMENT Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 _ SERVICES Charles Thistlethwaite April 13,.2010 County of Butte Invoice No: 31217 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Project Manager Scott Friend Project 26-.0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Professional Services from February 27, 2010 to March 26, 2010 Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 02 Preparation of Draft MEA Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 2/3/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 2/5/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 2/8/10 1.00 11.0.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 2/9/10 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 2/10/10 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend; Scott 2/11/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 2/17/10 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 2/23/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 3/4/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 3/8/10 .50 110.00 .55.00 Friend; Scott 3/9/10 3.50 110.00 385.00 Assistant Planner Granville, Dustin 2/8/10 2.00 60.00 120.00 Totals 15.50 1,605.00 Total Labor 1,605.00 Total this Labor Code $1,605.00 Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment. Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 2/5/10 .75 110.00 82.50 Serafini, Dino 2/2/10 4.50 110.00 495.00 Serafini, Dino 2/3/10 7.00 110.00 770.00 Serafini, Dino 2/4/10 7.00 110.00 770.00 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice31217 APPLICATIONS Totals 19.25 2,117.50 Total Labor .2,117.50 Total this Labor Code $2,117.50 " Labor Code 05 Meetings & Presentations Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 2/24/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 3/24/10 1.50 110.00 165.00 Wong, Derek 3/9/10 1..25 110.00 137.50 Totals 3.75 412.50 Total Labor 412.50 Total this Labor Code $412.50 Labor Code 06 Modified/ Additional Task Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 3/25/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Totals .50 55.00 Total Labor 55.00 Total this Labor Code $55.00 Labor Code EXP Expenses Consultants Civil Engineering Consultant 3/26/10 Omni -Means, Ltd. Las Plumas 2,526.41 Total Consultants 2,526.41 2,526.41 Total this Labor Code $2,526.41 Billing Limits Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 6,716.41 246,645.56 253,361:97 Limit 253,362.00 Remaining 0.03 Total this Billing Group $6,716.41 Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice 31217 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $6,716.41 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 30772 2/16/10 17,847.50 31006 3/16/10 1,910.00 Total 191757.50 Page 3 I 4 PMC0 INVOICE ..--� 2729 Prospect Park Drive Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Charles Thistlethwaite Oj�� �� 1 County of Butte OAS 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965. Project Man, Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLI Professional Servires fmm Janiiary 1 9n1n to Januar,,gw,gn1n.► Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental A.ssesment Project S Cfr '�B 1 7 2010 February 16, 2010 Invoice No: 30772 �r Scott Friend TIONS Labor Code 03 Revise Draft MEA/ Prepare Final MEA Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner • _ Friend, Scott 1/4/10, 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 1/6/10 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 1/7/10 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 1/8/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 1/11/10 2.50 110.00 275.00 Friend, Scott 1/12/10 2.50 1.10.00 275.00 Friend, Scott 1/14/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 1/15/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 1/19/10 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 1/21/10 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 1/22/10 1.00 110.00 -110.00 Assistant Planner Anderson, Nathan 1/5/10 3.00 60.00 180.00. Anderson, Nathan 1/8/10 1.00 60.00 60.00 Anderson, Nathan 1/11/10 1.00 , 60.00 60.00 Anderson, Nathan 1/21/10 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 1/6/10 3.00 60.00 180.00 .Granville, Dustin. 1/7/10 2.00 60.00 120.00 Granville, Dustin 1/12/10 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 1/20/10, 2.00, 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth 1/5/10 ., 3.00 •.60.00 .180.00 Myers, Seth 1%6/10. 5.00 60.00 300.00 Myers, Seth 1/20/10 6.00 60.00 360.00 Myers, Seth, 1/21/10 7.00 60.00 420.00 Myers, Seth 1/22/10 3.00 60.00 180.00 Administrative Project 26-0170 BUTTE .COUNTY .DEVELOPMENT Invoice 30772 APPLICATIONS Petek, Joseph 1/25/10 2.75 60.00 165.00 Totals 62.25 4,610.00 Total Labor 4,610.00 Total this Labor Code $4,610.00 Page 2 Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours . Rate Amount Municipal Finance Analyst Snider, Donna 1/21/10. 1.50 135.00 202.50 Snider, Donna 1/28/10 4.00 135.00 540.00 Snider, Donna 1/29/10 6.00 135.00 810.00 Senior Planner Friend, Scott 1/14/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 1/15/10 .50 110.00. 55.00 Friend, Scott 1/26/10 .50 110.00 '55.00 Friend, Scott 1/27/10 .50 110.00 55.00 Serafini; Dino 1/15/10 4.50 .110.00 495.00 Serafini, Dino 1/18/10. 3.00 110.00 .330.00 Serafini, Dino. 1/19/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 1/20/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 1/21/10 1.50 110.00 165.00 Serafini, Dino 1/25/10 2.00 110.00 220.06 Serafini, Dino 1/27/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 1/28/10 1.00 110.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 1/29/10 6.00 110.00 660.00 Wong, Derek 1/18/10 4.00 110.00 440.00 Worig, Derek 1/21/10 4.00 110.00 440.00 Wong, Derek 1/22/10 4.00 110.00 '440.00 Wong, Derek 1/29/10 1.00 110.00 .110.00 Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia 1/5/10 6.50 75.00 487.50 Light, Julia 1/6/10 6.00 75.00 450.00 Light, Julia 1/7/10 8.00 75.00 60,0.00 Light, Julia 1/8/10 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia' 1/11/10 6.25 75.00 468.75 Light, Julia 1/12/10 5.00 .75.00 375.00. Light, Julia 1/13/10 5.00 75.00 375.00 Light, Julia 1/14/10 3.25 75.00 .243.75- 43.75Light, Light,Julia 1/15/10 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 1/16/10 6.00 75.00 450.00 Light, Julia 1/18/10 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 1/19/10 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 1/20/10. 9.00 75.00 675.00 Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice30772 APPLICATIONS Light, Julia 1/21/10 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia. 1/22/10 8.00 75.00 600.00 Totals 150.50 13,237.50 Total Labor 13,237.50 Total this Labor Code $13,237.50 Billing Limits Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 17,847.50 226,888.06 244,735.56 ,Limit 253,362.00 Remaining 8,626.44 Total this Billing Group. $17,847.50 Page 3 0 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice 30772 ' APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice .$17,847.50 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 30287 1/12/10 2,363.75 Total 2,363.75 Page 4 ANNUAL ROAD REPORT Fiscal Year. 2009 COVER PAGE County of Butte 4k-',596- 77681 ID Number: 18990400000 Certification: We hereby certify, to the best of our knowledge and belief, that the amounts stated herein fairly present a statement of all monies available, and the expenditures therefrom, for street or road purposes in accordance with the requirements as prescribed by the Califomia State Controller pursuant to Sections 2151-5 of the Streets and Highways Code. • Road ' sinner Signature Name (Please Print) Trite Dat County ditor-C ntroilgr Signa ure sb4 via Name (Please Print) Tide Datd Per Streets and Highways Code Section 2151, this report is due on or before October 1. To file electronically: . 1. Complete ail forms as necessary. 2. Transmit the completed output file using a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) program or via diskette. 3. Sign this cover page and mail to either address below. Report will not be considered filed until receipt of this signed cover page. Mailing Address: State Controller's Office Division of Audits Special Audits Bureau Annual Street and Road Report .P. O. Box 942850 Sacramento, CA 94250-5874 To file a paper report: 1. Complete all forms as necessary. 2. Sign this cover page, and mail completed report to either address below. Express Mailing Address: State Controller's Office Division of Audits Special Audits Bureau Annual Street and Road Report 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 518 Sacramento, CA 95814 County information Street 1 17 County Center Drive . Street 2 ttn: Laura Schneider, Public Works Accountant City joroville. State CA Zip 95965-3397 Email lischneider@buttecounty 1 [•'>•] Click If New Address Report Prepared By Finn Name IState Controller's Office First BIII Middle initial 0 . Last lCarey Title lAudft Specialist -RA Email bcarey@sco.ca.gov Telephone (916) 323-1978 Fax No. (916) 3246900 General Information Page 1 10/7/200.9 Comment Prior Year (2008/09) had two adjustments noted on Schedule 6b as noted: Fund 2007 FMV Investment J2590 for 127,736 and Trust Fund Adjustments processed in error which totaled -3,234,912 - J2598. During the current fiscal year an entry was processed for 3,377,717 to reverse out the prior year's entries. This amount Included interest to the various trust funds. Cindy Jones, Admin. Analyst will have the backup pertaining to these various transactions. Laura Schneider will be our main contact pertaining to Road Cost Accounting. Comments for the Annual Road Report Page 1 10/7/2009 Analysis of Changes in Fund Balances Fiscal Year Ended 2009 - Fund Balances at Beginning of Fiscal Year Highway Users Tax �043m® Traffic Congestion Relief r p Section 99234, Public Utilities Code.0 ............. . Section 99400a, Public Utilities Code .. IF0 All Other Sources 9,981,898 ' Total Beginning Fund Balances 12,025,048 Monies Made Available During Fiscal Year 20 037 952 Total Money Available for Road Purposes 32,063,000 ' Expenditures During Fiscal Year 22,735,312 Fund Balances at End of Fiscal Year Highway Users Tax 2,043,150 Traffic Congestion Relief 1 Section 99234, Public Utilities Code 0 Section 99400a, Public Utilities Code 0 All Other Sources 7,284,537 Total Ending Fund Balances 9,327,688 ObIlgations and Other Commitments [- 4,047,166 Analysis of Changes in Fund Balances - Schedule 1 Page 1 10/7/2009 Analysis of Monies Made Available Fiscal Year Ended 2009 Monies Made Available by State of California: Gas Tax Apportionments Section 2104 a, Streets and Highways Code Section 2104 b, Streets and Highways Code Section 2104 c, Streets and Highways Code Section 2104 d, e, and f Streets and Highways Code Section 2105, Streets and Highways Code Section 2106, Streets and Highways Code Total Gas Tax Apportionments Monies Made Available by State of California Traffic Congestion Relief Motor Vehicle License (In -Lieu Tax) Flexible Congestion Relief Traffic Systems Management TEA -21 Matching Funds TEA -21 Exchange Funds RTPA Exchange Funds Disaster Assistance (OES) Other State Aid (Maximum 10 items) Specify: 20,004 92,376 ' 805 2,222,326 1 1,629,232 N 39-7–,3-2-21\– I 97,322 \- State - Local Trans. Partnership -Lookout Point 425,248 State - Miscellaneous-SR70 /Ophir Rd. 5.5682� Total: $960,930 ' Total Monies Made Available By State 1 $9,673,839 Analysis of Monies Made Available - Schedule 2 Page 1 10/7/2009 .L=EI= •sY+-.� ., <'^:''��.. ".,Syc� �' "� ,�•s,•. $Q:' - �� �"� _ '�'�. ,7r" •" �^' e „e; - h4 'r`r. � :�c� y •="�i�fw��.;'!<,� .c..z� , �' :j'-- r,�-�� �.:-�3� E �a ��b � %7 PJl ki4 0l � � _:�� . �k1[:�;��rr..��:'�•.•x �...s� -3 a ..� � �r r• li o a }�•�o• o` ,, } e r. �� 5°�` - �,-:.,� �.: �;�; �'' i "3' j tf.' �•. J . 7<✓•;� Y r at .�'l,'v, , -`�' s�' '�-3�N� � ;� ` � .:%� �' ;�` ��'�'j��y�� �� `.t�� i f�(�1J_4'i i �av�=o a � �y +�' .��%�«u- r.� i p 9 �-�.�: E.� Kms.:.,. c'����r+ ?->_<-��, �i• � y '�• �rLj �A`'1 lts *,�'-s� ✓t�- %..�c p 's�.,�udy'�r::y`�,n':�-• ��'iFt+� "c<-c�,�c ���t � u Kk, 'b"s��Y"�z�'r�z3�`�>� �t��w ; F `��-��: 4�i' T. y'�`� N �C��`��Nr.�•�.F+S��" }�-'S�.�����'`�'`"5.:.,s;';'R•<a``�'•�.=��-��'�_.,.�.�,,:a�xrx..�,.s �'ape;;':£.•oc�;�;�.�<.�"�•tsas�?.k������-:�', a;-''���s •..� t Analysis of Monies Made Available Fiscal Year Ended 00• OtherMonies Made Available by TransportationAgencies: Federal Government Federal Forest Reserve 333,026 EnhancementHazard Elimination Safety .. Disaster Assistance (FEMA) 70. • �. Amount specffv- Monies Made Available by Other Governmental Agencies: Cities and Districts Lighting Districts Other Cities and Districts (Ma)imum 10 items) Specify: Total Monies Available by Other Governmental Agencies Analysis of Monis Made Available - Schedule 2 Amount. r:r� $7,466,943 ' Page 2 10/7/2009 dmin Fees Fiscal Year Ended, 2009 y Mapping Fees • ` • ,, " '. Monies Made Available from County and Local Sources Other/Copy Sales - Unrealized Loss-FMV - (59,030) i •' ' _ y, , Road Taxes on Unincorporated Areas _ U Revenue pertaining to Prior Year 8,885 Road Taxes on County -Wide Basis } ?• , ` Developer/Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees $1,358,031 , , $0 Traffic Fines and Forfeitures (Section 4220, Vehicle Code), Proceeds from Sales of Bonds for Road Purposes 1329,061 r� `s, + Interest from Investment of Road Purpose Funds r 210,078 Other General Purpose Funds " -'� Other Receipts from County and Local Sources (Maximum 10 items) -r $1,358,031 ' Total Money made Available from County and Local $2,897,170 +" .. Specify: Amount:;RefresHt,< • Grand Total Monies Made Available dmin Fees 646,972- Mapping Fees 3,002 ' (mond Mine Revenue 1237833 7] Other/Copy Sales 56,201 Unrealized Loss-FMV - (59,030) Insurance 12,717 Miscellaneous Revenues 444,259 Revenue pertaining to Prior Year 8,885 Transportation Fees & Encroachment Permits t Prior Year Interest for Trust Funds 78,531 Total: $1,358,031 , , $0 Section 99234, Public Utilities Code Allocation ` .. �. Interest and Other Revenue t r-� - Y• Total Section 99234 Public Utilities Code • , $0 r Section 99400a, Public Utilities Code er Allocation • 1329,061 r� `s, + - Interest and Other Revenue' ` -Total Section 99400a Public Utilities Code , $1 329 061 Total Money made Available from County and Local $2,897,170 Sources �. • Grand Total Monies Made Available $20,037,952 i ` n _ Analysis of Monies Made Available.- Schedule 2 Page 3 10/7/2009. ` • � .. , � 1 y` :���3'c �'tiyfY•��"�% t-� Y G :'b"' -/�"� •L�' :`'Jr,rv..,z'�•`�: r�3..�,-.!`�'.�_m�'.m''r'''..y'a""•"�``.,'a.�szY.a.>• s.,.^vaf3.•��;U°.<a'a�'•c7>`. �io �.qc.� ..�(:r..:� •16[� xl .�" ,�c•�� Hj:��v"'�ot•^- .:i. �,:�%F�i>� �, 4 ��:::>ST.�._.�S.x'�r-�ti.'�:r��7'F' c...`.."s'i`•�'•��i�'''� - (fi,?`4 `�.•_�'!K+- rsir t�iY �� R :?'..':!:'`.�.7,.4� - - vh`i2'^rye,;`!">f.^.' iYti,>� . �.+ :7'` S;d .L�;rn :» ";%? . S '.`•s�.r'':'{ ..�'" Pr�_�,2-cc r:f�"3�:. LY' •i''' `�J!".. - e 2�I'.r>{ %Li,A. ,.�,.,.0>Y�• 1 o �'y�7:y�!' >• • � �1 Y •G ✓. 13 7:?.,., gy ^a.iF :.=iii S � � �i1�.,1 C �y{• � - '�_ala.�:/i:c'ii. .!r.5':;,.•.:py�y.?.v �:•rrc,� ._ �i`='� a. 'L .• �J�,. �) p�..r,��l•��p.7;v.'•>L.'•;''�..}.:CZ.'.•rfavYi.rfi.:.::.'4;=ir��t1£ � c�J dq��`.����7 "!� )rT f^ J ;SY:\ w>:G vt:�... Y_„•>A�j;:'1-:.',.". L:: p . rrr l 4w ..c• 1. j..� JI,.. K .rJr�c•• sF"R•ni _G+�_l �.� n7�fi 'Ftr V Jai w•%'.i jl ��.`.,,�ah�F•. �..L 'rid'`' ..J Y..LiL n:f. r..v t.Y'Y;>!r'.�. .�Y�!.i/ t'rc- 4 .Jn r. ./ L��1 � f � �..'Sj_. A� _�� � �".r�_r�v�. ..��i>,: � �•S:ar, ' }•_Tc. ���n°"i>xr-_" u.6- at? x=�� K:: J' .�'lS.'.,�� F.>'�" � - -µ, .r�.Pl C :�::'.:��.'�'. �... ,F ..:. ..y •;:�'•%:.:;� �:i �..,, _�I. ��.. �7., ..K:1 ._.6L. y-;�i pG)ivri1. i^r ��'c Y ,,.i,.v.:i _•i:= f•:T �f �> �-.{ �iS•if'._J=G%+4.%���ir...>�n%�i'-"�` K�-I ?'c:g w':% tr.v. �� ^ � ':J ��l' Ski" ,ra �1L._al .r.: ���1 �i�� �Ft./ .1 ��-`.'��4'.. ?� r� . z... 3::r.'�i'. ,=ri.r.< - .tri ,.:;:>.v.:. 11• - • r. . 1 1 . 1 • .I 1 • 1 .1 1. ........ ....... -........ .. ..... ......_ .._.. .._. ..-. _,......-..... ..._ ... ....._....... ... �. .._. .._._—__..�__._—._...... ya -:r.�:v';:!�- 1 'T�"�'^�" .�:• •.;bay'•'i::;iK2i....c'�`i�`.`y.•:'��•��;oi-,%7 : r.�....:^r -1 .�� `�;-�" i4- 5����:;..=9'�.F'�',�>� U.`;an.�__._ .,i��'.'�✓,�Sj: ,:oc Ec ...f_w'Tr.>: { .:�^•�• 1. '2y��� .Y j:��fr: i%,?;` J>..: .r.'la::�fl 7„•.',£'�,.�� :lib'. •`•��i�h ^'?:�L;t✓- P.�'^; r.'`{iF �� u�'^".k "tea:._ ..ti •!'ra :ice=.c. �fi.�5�+..:da:.. :+^�`..-.�:'._ rF;�a�G �.iz�C.Y>`��:. L'i'.�`'.::h:u. `F?:i3 ;;!'J ,•�'`C..:r. ' � Y 1 1 1 1 173 •1 • � _ 1 1 / 1 ,;1•v..s:;%��driy!;Y,.a3?, ;?.. .::.7;f�,r`' - r�.y.}. 'v"•'C;i %`Y�':: .,.;i�:}%�. - 7� �- „F.L_= .cc>i" :<3:7:fi _u:i+r.i�,.+ � "S c_ �"[•:M ::1�`'S�SI: " �:5x`u 1 1 '�_-••yam.—i "�.:rd�l...y -�..: /�j: '... Y. . 1- - �=,f1't .. _ _ _ _ - __ _ • � '•-:- i.":: �'_:�:-. ,_�, Vit, /'�.n i. i' 'S.C?rr' :i'.:�I.r v=T(,: i. ,� �`�- ?;. ;;�7•ti.; r..� :/ - � Y h �., ��>"":):..>} J:':S &^"L: t✓/J `.i;si•�'4' S .Gi .Y :. ,r N J.S✓^ y� 15L \Kt"f'j''.:�--•ti� :.r.J" j)':`:�" per. • . 1 : \ nr. �>?> �.r.� Y�ZS;w �.t e Y � .•'�o <'-t4::�<.'r:?'? > /FL+�lit"b:::�.. _z1 ar '�,.v..:.�:C�i: ,�,�r _a%'<-.,J'2:eS:r�i .•=r3•i:. � •• PER:`:t��i.`.J�g,c Summary of Expenditures For Road Purposes Fiscal Year 2009 Per Sch 6a Sch 6b Total Adjustments Expenditure Funding Recap Highway Users Tax r .. •.. 1����3, . ..4,362,065 0 $4,362,065 Traffic Congestion Relief .. 2.779,408 .. $2,779,408. Section 99234, Public Utilities Code u `° $0.. Section 99400a, Public Utilities Code MW 1,329,061 0 $1 329 061 All Other Sources - Non -Discretionary 10,887,061 3,377,717 $14,264,778 All Other Sources - Discretionary s 0 0 $0 ' Total Expenditures 19,357,595 3,377,717 Summary of Expenditures For Road Purposes - Schedule 3 Page 2 10/72009 Fiscal Year Ended 2009 Highway Users Traffic Section 99234 Section 99400a Tax Congestion Relief P.U. Code , P.U. Code Admin and Undistributed $2,228,751 , Engineering ` `Gons(ruction �' - ' $205 177 $1,329 061 e. • Right of Way g `� A Snow Removal •. $306,523 Storm Damage M. $341,169 _... ......_ ... _ .^......... ... .... . ... ........ ..... ,• �- Other Maintenance '{ Acquisition of Equipment . , Acquisition of Plant " ,:•.. Aid to Other Gov Agencies _:...... _ _......_ ...._............._.... s ". ' Net Non -Road Work Grand Total Expenditures $4,362,065 $2,779,408. $0 $1;329,061 ' u, Non- Discretionary Total •.r ,+ Discretionary Funds "Admin and Undistributed $2 228,7 a a Engineering.. .� 1 Construction $7,013,965 $8,548 I3 a . .. i c Right of Way $384,672__ - _ $384,672 5 - Snow Removal t Storm Damage _$73,76_7 �J _$380,290_ $341,169 Other Maintenance ` , - - $2,914,677 - -$6,974530 u'F s '�. Acquisition of Equipment $644,792_ i $644,792 w ^ r Acquisition of Plant, 0 . r ' Aid to Other Gov Agencies — Net Non -Road Work. .' ($144,81.; $0 Grand Total Expenditures ,•' ? Total Maintained Mileage on 1,302.0100 CountyRoad System " ExpenditureRecap,- Schedule 6a Page 1 10/7/2009. Source From Which Paid Highway Users Tax Traffic Congestion Relief Section 99234, Public Utilities Code Section 99400a, Public Utilities Code Amount Expended from All Other Sources - Non -Discretionary Amount Expended from All Other Sources - Discretionary Total Fund Adjustments and Expenditures Schedule of Fund Adjustments and Other Expenditures Altowed By Law - Schedule Eli ........... _...... 3 377717 $3,377,717 Page 1 10/72009 r a. Snow Removal Expenditures Fiscal Year Ended 2009 Labor 206,473 Equipment 96,833 Materials j Overhead 26,552 Contract ISF Charges Depreciation (25% of Equipment) 24,208 Applied Variance (11,829) Miscellaneous Charges 62,261 , Other 1 Other 2 Subtotal $404,498 Less Depreciation (Unless Internal Service Fund Is Maintained)24,208 Total Snow Removal Expenditures 5380,290 Subtotal Amount Above $404,498 Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code 2162(d), $5,000 less 85,000 Snow Removal Expenditures In Excess of $5,000 _ $399,498 Amount to Be Claimed (80% of Snow Removal t $319,598 Expenditures In Excess of $5,000) Snow Removal Expenditures - Schedule 6c Page 1 10!7/2009 Fiscal Year Ended Labor Labor Clearing ` Other - Variance Percent Equipment Equipment Clearing Other Variance Percent Shop Overhead Shop Clearing Other Variance Percent General Road Overhead rt General Road Overhead Clearing Other 1 Other 2 Variance Percent Other Inventory Clearing Other 1 Other 2 Variance Percent Schedule of Clearing Account Activity 2009 - Object Charges Cost Variance Distribution 8,221,031 7.965,840_1-$255,191 $0 , +,,ly .3.10/0 1,497,503 1,437,734 $59,769 $0 WIN M, IMPE 549,760 499,284 $50,476 .•$0 790,242 672,546 $117,696 $0 $0 253,004 234,802 $18,202- 471,598 431,140 .$40,458 $0 _ .... �. - . .. .8.10%0'• Schedule of Clearing Account Activity - Schedule 7 Page 1 Page 1 of 1 Stuart, Claudia From: Stuart, Claudia Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:05 PM To: Kim, Sang; Limper, Thomas Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Please review: Las Plumas FIA and IIFA Attachments: Context memo for MEA FIA and.IFA 020810.pdf; 4.2.Draft Infrastructure and Fee Assessment 2- 8-10.pdf; Draft Las Plumas Fiscal Impact Analysis 1_22_10.pdf Sang and Tom, DDS has recently received the following documents from PMC for the Las Plumas project: • Fiscal Impact Report (FIA) • Infrastructure and Impact Fee Assessment (IIFA) • Associated Cover Memo. The documents are attached. As I emailed you last month, these documents are administrative drafts which will constitute Section 4 of the Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). All other sections of the MEA have been finalized. DDS is working with Public Works to review the cost estimates for traffic, and we already expect some revisions to these. We are assuming that your office will want to lead other internal (and potentially external) review of the FIA and IIFA, including review by other departments (law enforcement, fire, etc.). DDS has coordinated externally with a number of entities throughout the MEA process. Review by several of these, specifically the Feather River Recreation and Parks District, and the EI Medio Fire District, should be external review priorities. The Cover Memo provides a summary of both the FIA and IIFA, and is recommended as a starting point in your review. I have also copied the full MEA, as well as the attached documents, onto CD and will provide each of you with a copy shortly. Please let me know if you need additional copies of the CD, or any other background materials to assist in your review. PMC fiscal and planning staff is available to discuss these documents, and the goals and history of the project, with you and other County staff once you have had an opportunity for initial review. I am available to arrange the conference call with your office, DDS staff, PMC, and/or others as needed. In order to keep the project on schedule, we would like to. conclude review within 2-3 weeks. This should provide time for PMC to incorporate comments and return the final documents by the contract closing date of 3/31. Please let me know how you would like to proceed with coordinating the internal and external review of the attached documents. Thank you Claudia Stuart Principal Planner - Special Projects Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 530-538-7604 Fax 530-538-7785 Email: cstuartCcDbuttecountv.net 2/25/2010 MEMO To: Claudia Stuart From: Scott Friend Derek Wong Dino Serafini Date: February 8, 2010 Re: Context for Las Plumas Fiscal Impact Analysis and Infrastructure and Impact Fee Assessment This memo is intended to provide context for the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) and the Infrastructure and Impact Fee Assessment (IIFA) attached for inclusion into the Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), as Chapters 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. This memo provides background to these two analyses in terms of their scope and intended purpose. The administrative draft documents are provided for your review/comment prior to PMC's submittal of a public review draft of the documents for review by stakeholders including the wider County staff. The level of review and feedback we hope to obtain from County staff should be focused on the key parameters, or assumptions, upon which the FIA and IIFA based. The goal of the review by staff is to ensure that the documents are consistent with the MEA in terms of overall content and that there are no fundamental issues or concerns from the County staffs perspective. We anticipate that the review of these admin draft document to take two to three weeks. The intent of your review is to improve the success of the public draft of the Impact Fee Assessment. Background- Fiscal Impact Analysis The FIA, prepared as part of the MEA, forecasts the impacts of future development primarily from the seven pending developments in the Las Plumas area. Land use decisions and development have a net effect on a County's ability to provide on-going public services as well as collect new revenue to offset the increased services cost. The FIA determines the recurring annual revenue and operating cost impacts primarily to the County's General Fund as a result of the proposed developments through the year 2030. The analysis was conducted under a static condition, meaning that the fiscal impact results are presented at one point in time, namely in 2030 when the seven pending developments are assumed to be built out. The FIA evaluates municipal services such as sheriff, corrections, and public assistance and provides information about the fiscal impacts related to the provision of these basic municipal services. Roads maintenance is also included given the financial impacts from additional roadways needed for the development. As parks maintenance and fire protection are provided by independent special districts in Las Plumas, separate fiscal impact analyses are also conducted for these services beyond those assumed provided by the County. The FIA does not take into account nor is intended to provide the following: 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 • Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 • P: (916) 361-8384 • F: (916) 361-1574 Y Claudia Stuart February 8, 2010 Page 2 of 3 • It does not address capital infrastructure needs or deficiencies. These will be addressed in the Impact Fee Assessment discussed below. Rather, the FIA assumes countywide operational levels of public services as�gauged by recent general fund budget expenditures. • It does not provide the basis for the establishment of an impact fee program to cover the capital infrastructure costs. • It does not address impacts to enterprise programs (water, sewer, etc.), as it is assumed costs incurred for these programs will be paid for through user charges, fees and other special revenue. Overall Findings of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Below is the listing of the major findings from the FIA. The summary fiscal impact to the County General Fund shows a slight net positive of $313,000 by 2030 from the pending developments. This suggests that the project is viable from a fiscal perspective as it relates to the County General Fund. The land use mix comprised of residential, retail commercial and industrial provides a fairly balanced set of development products over a 20 -year period. Roads maintenance also shows a slight net positive of about $20,000 which reflects the incremental impact based upon budget data. 2. The impacts to the Feather River Recreation and Park District from anticipated maintenance of future parklands in Las Plumas show a fiscal deficit of $159,000 by 2030. It is assumed in the analysis that the district would be required to maintain parklands equal to about 14.5 acres, or the equivalent of meeting the service goals of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Budgeted .operations costs are modeled against land based revenues generated from new development including the district's share of property taxes and the benefit assessment district. As a conservative measure, user fee revenues that may be generated by the district are not included in the analysis, as it is unknown if the types of parkland facilities to be developed in Las Plumas would generate revenue (e.g. rental facilities). 3. The impacts to the EI Medio Fire Protection District from its assumed servicing of the project area show a slight fiscal positive of about $11,000 by 2030. Budgeted operations costs are modeled against revenues generated from new development including the district's share of property taxes and the voter -approved special district tax. Infrastructure and Impact Fee Assessment Notes about the Administrative Draft Impact Fee Assessment: Introduction The Introduction provides a statement of the objectives of the IIFA, the methodology used in the assessment and the "bottom line" findings of the IIFA. The findings of primary interest are the total cost of the public facilities needed to accommodate the "pending development project" in the LPSA and the cost of those improvements per unit of anticipated development. The Claudia Stuart February 8, 2010 Page 3 of'3 Introduction also provides the reviewer with an understanding of how level of service standards affect the scale and cost of the public facilities needed for the LPSA. Land Use Growth Assumptions These assumptions are the growth dwelling units, resident population, employees and non- residential floor area taken directly from Chapter 2.1 of Master Environmental Assessment -- Pending Projects Growth Scenario --summarized in Table 2.1-6. Facility Sections Each facility section begins with a statement of purpose and refers back to the relevant Chapters of the MEA as necessary. The assumptions which underlay the findings of the improvement needs/impact fees are also presented in these facility sections. Planning level cost estimates are also included within these sections, as well as the calculation of cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). Overall Findings of the Infrastructure and Impact Fee Assessment The Summary section in Chapter 4.2 -Introduction provides a concise list of proposed fees for equivalent dwelling units in each facility category. The total fee amount is approximately $26,000, which is nearly 3 times the sum of the current County and applicable District fees. This difference is due to the facility costs of the Parks and Traffic categories. Even at this fairly high impact fee amount the estimated $63 million in projected impact fee revenues from the pending development projects in the LPSA is only about 25% of the total infrastructure cost estimated to be needed by the developments. The primary sources of the difference in fee revenues and total cost are, again, Parks and Traffic but also Sheriff facilities. The difference is due to current facility deficiencies which, by State law, may not be remedied through the use of impact fees and, in the case of Traffic, the cost of facilities that are regional by nature and should be funded by a larger benefit area. Next Steams As soon as we receive staffs comments, PMC will make the necessary revisions and prepare public review drafts of the documents and cover letter/context memo as appropriate. We look forward to your comments. Page l of 2 Stuart, Claudia From: Michelena, Mark. Sent:. Monday, December 14, 2009 7:54 AM To: Stuart, Claudia Subject: FW: Las Plumas question Al the other project densities are correct for the projects as of today Mark Michelena Senior Planner;Planning Division Butte .County Department of Development Services 7, County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7376 (530) 538-2140 Fax mmichelenana.buttecountv.net "COUNTY OF BUTTE E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this e-mail -(or any attachments thereto) by other than the County of Butte or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original.and any copies of this e-mailand any attachments thereto." From: Michelena, Mark Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 7:53`AM To: Stuart, Claudia Subject: RE: Las Plumas question Claudia, Ashlock is actually showing a net density while all the other projects are a gross density. The gross density for Ashlock is 3.8. On the Villages at Las'Plumas, the numbers are reflective of Phase 2. Was this done based' on the fact that multi -family on the 20 acre Phase 1 portion would be consistent under the current general plan and zoning and would only need a building permit to develop? Mark Michelena Senior Planner, Planning Division Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 '(530) 538-7376, . (530) 538-2140 Fax i mmichelenaaa buttecountv.net "COUNTY OF BUTTE E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this e-mail (or any attachments ;hereto) by other than the County of Butte or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any attachments thereto." From: Stuart, Claudia , Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:23 PM To: Michelena, Mark ' Subject: Las Plumas question Hi Mark 12/14/2009 i`I' . Stuart, Claudia From: Sent: To: Cc: Stuart, Claudia Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:05 PM Kim, Sang; Limper, Thomas Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Page i of 1 Subject: Please review: Las Plumas FIA and IIFA Attachments: Context memo for MEA FIA and IFA 020810.pdf; 4.2.Draft Infrastructure and Fee Assessment 2- 8-10.pdf; Draft Las Plumas Fiscal Impact Analysis 1_22_10.pdf Sang and Tom, DDS has recently received the following documents.from PMC for the Las Plumas project: • Fiscal Impact Report (FIA) • Infrastructure and Impact Fee Assessment (IIFA) • Associated Cover Memo. The documents are attached. As I emailed you last month, these documents are administrative drafts which will constitute Section 4 of the Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). All other sections of the MEA have been finalized. DDS is working with Public Works to review the cost estimates for traffic, and we already expect some revisions to these. We are assuming that your office will want to lead other internal (and potentially external) review of the FIA and IIFA, including review by other departments (law enforcement, fire, etc.). DDS has coordinated externally with a number of entities throughout the MEA process. Review by several of these, specifically the Feather River Recreation and Parks District, and the EI Medio Fire District, should be external review priorities. The Cover Memo provides a summary of both the FIA and IIFA, and is recommended as a starting point in your review. I have also copied the full MEA, as well as the attached documents, onto CD and will provide each of you with a copy shortly. Please let me know if you need additional copies of the CD, or any other background materials to assist in your review. PMC fiscal and planning staff is available to discuss these documents, and the goals and history of the project, with you and other County staff once you have had an opportunity for initial review. I am available to arrange the conference call with your office, DDS staff, PMC, and/or others as needed. In order to keep the project on schedule, we would like'to conclude review within 2-3 weeks. This should provide time for PMC to incorporate comments and return the final documents by the contract closing date of 3/31. Please let me know how you would like to proceed with coordinating the internal and external review of the attached documents. Thank you. Claudia Stuart Principal Planner - Special Projects Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 530-538-7604 Fax 530-538-7785 Email: cstuart(cDbuttecounty.net 2/23/2010 �41 4 Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecou nty.neVdds www.butte-generalplan.net ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * MEMORANDUM`S TO: Scott Friend, PMC FROM: Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner ,` u SUBJECT: LAS PLUMAS FMEA-S�CREENCHECK COMMENTS AND COMMENTS ON FINALREVISION_5:�j DATE: August5:,2009 Scott, Thank you for providing the eeised Las Plumas MEA on July 27th, and subsequent corrections to the traffic analys s on,August A. The County has the following comments/questions regardi�g,,these changes 'Most of4h se are "screencheck" (formatting) corrections. A few are questions/comments remaining from the County's previous comments on the DMEA, or questions/comments generated by the revised information in the FMEA. The page references below are based'on the complete document you forwarded last week. I have also attached several comments`in the revised traffic section of Aug. 3`d Vim/ The fastest way to clear up some of the questions below may be a brief conference call with Omni -Means. I will contact you shortly to coordinate moving forward. GENERAL (From the County's previous comments): Some of the full-page figures print upside- down. Can these be re -oriented in the digital file so that they print correctly? (Figs. 2.1-1, 2.1-2, 2.1-3, 2.5-1, 2.6-2, 2.6-4, 2.8-4, 2.8-6, 2.8-8, 2.8-10, 3.0-1, all figures in Appendix C) Final Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Screen Check Comments August 4, 2009 Page 1 of 5 .? ;(From,ltIhe--previouscomments):-In'each,section, please clarify -the proportion of the •:,identified,iniprovements`to,be funded'by the proposedprojects. From:the revious,comments The,fundin of operations'. needs to be addressed in this document, in addition,to capital needs.. Where- will `this be addressed in.the document?s f TABLE OF CONTENTS Add: =v, • . Figure -2.1.1. Butte County General Plan -2030 Preferred Land Use Alternative ✓ Figure 2.172 Vacant Lands ; ✓ Figure 2.1'3 Pending Projects yea ✓ ' Figure. 3'0-1,FEMA Flood Hazard Map . 1.0 INTRODUCTION .. Background, Page 1.0-2;.1 st pa`ragraph: Change '+/ 10 applications" to n u =*�` n u 'lightly "Z applications Also, change slightly over 1,800 units} to slightly over 1,700 units" Background; page 1.0-2; 2"d paragraph-; iast line: Change: Figure 2.2=1 to 2.1 2.0 SUBJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS :Existing EnvironmentaLSett g;Last paragrap 5'� line:, Change "closets" to "closest" a " Growth Scenario -3, 2"d fu I paragraph, 2"d Iine:.Change Table 2.1-1 to 2.1-2. . 2.1 LAND SE PROJECTIONS < y Page 2:1-1, Assumptions: Can you replace this wording,. starting with the sentence before the Goa/, :with thefbllowing "Sample goal; p Licy, and action wording yfollow. ' Goal: Provide for order,y, well-planned and balanced growth consistent with the limits .imposed.by infrastructure and the,ability of the County to assimilate new growth in the' Oroville Sphere of Influence. r Policy: A maximum of 10;704 dwelling units has been as's'umed for the proposed unincorporated area of the Oroville Sphere of Influence (Oroville 2030 General Plan). Of this total, 1,749 dwelling units have been allocated to the Las'Plumas Study.Area also < located within. the,Sphere: ,'In:order,to'ensure that new development does not exceed growth'assumptions'for,this area, Butte County will -track actual growth and require an addendum to the General•Plan-.EIR' (or functional equivalent) to be prepared prior to any newgrowth that.exceeds projections assessed under the original EIR.. Final Las Plumas Master Environmental` Assessment Butte County Screen Check Comments a August 4i 2009 Page 2 of 5 fV 4 Action: The Department of Development Services shall maintain a list of development .occurring within the Oroville Sphere of Influence as approved in April 2009, as shown on the accompanying exhibit. When planned development exceeds 80 percent of the maximum number of units projected under the original General Plan EIR for the overall project area, the Director shall require that an addendum to the General Plan EIR (or functional equivalent) be prepared to address growth not otherwise anticipated by the General Plan 2030 EIR." 2.2 LAW ENFORCEMENT & FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES Response Time, p. 2.2-14, 2"d paragraph: Revise first senten has standards requiring that...." Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Agreements, p. 2.2-W.(Fr&n the previous comments) Please change to " The BCFD/CAL FIRE Emerge cyCommand Center (ECC) provides dispatching services for the Oroville Fire Department, the EI Medio Fire�Department, and the cities of Biggs and Gridley." 2.5 STORM DRAINAGE (From the previous comments): PleaseN0rovide "a„clear recommendation in the document regarding the area that should'be includedJn an updated drainage study sufficient to address any additional infrastructure nee - s�i rn elation to upstream or ., , downstream drainage,!T is s not yet included. 2.6 SANITARY SEWER Sections 2,f64S6rnta v Sewer) rid 2 7 (Domestic and Fire Protection Water) compare a "Pend ingiProjects' scenario with a,�PLUA Buildout” scenario. This is in contrast to the othersections, which compare a-203eHorizon" scenario with a "PLUA Buildout' scenario Do Sections 2 6:.'and 2.7 ded revision to be consistent with the other sections��\ � "t Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District, page 2.6-16, 2"d paragraph: Change Table 2.2-5 to Table 2.1-5. 7 2.7 DOMESTIC AND FIRE PROTECTION WATER Sections 2.6 (Sanitary Sewer) and 2.7 (Domestic and Fire Protection Water) compare a "Pending Projects" scenario with a "PLUA Buildout' scenario. This is in contrast to the other sections, which compare a "2030 Horizon" scenario with a "PLUA Buildout' scenario. Do Sections 2.6 and 2.7 require revision to be consistent with the other sections? Final Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Screen Check Comments August 4, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Pending Development Projects Water Demand, page 2.7-7, 2nd paragraph: Correct 1,799 to 1,749 and adjust water demand estimate accordingly. 2.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Page 2.2-1 SR 162: The text states ADT is 33,000. Figure 2.8-4 (Existing Roadway ADT) shows 30,000. Please reconcile. _..- Please see the comments inserted into the traffic analysis in the attached Word CAJ441-- document. r" Are any of the streets analysed here local streets that shoul6 have a LOS target of C, according to the City and County GPs? /f Key question: Why are improvements proposed tha%xceed LOS targets? Page 2.2-16 in the Word document and Figure 10 show a number of 'recommended Improvements �s that bring roadways to LOS C, exceeding the target of LO D. Please include or refer to Figure LU -4 from the City" ity of,Oroville�General Plan -2030 Land Use Element, showing the proposed SOI for the City�Note in the text that this is the SOI �6v W used in the analysis. �pY _ Pages 2.8-3 and 2.8-4: Title and number\tables; and add them"'." of Contents. Table 2.8-2 Butte Count Peak Hour Levei-of Servlce,[LOS] Thresholds for Roadways) — Subheading should belly nged from "Average Dally Traffic (ADT)..." to "Peak Hour Traffic Volume". Key comment: Page 2 Butte County.General I "E" from SR:70 toy eatl and continuing to Lowe Blvd fThe revised MEA Highway: Can you expl Similarly, BGGP�2030 s Marysville and Monte V —Page 2.8-27, Build Table_2.8-5 Existing/Conditions: Roadway LOS — The draft )30-A ppendix-wBshows the existing LOS of SR 162 to be 4 r,,Blvd. and F" from Feather River Blvd to Olive Highway ndotte, then back to "E" from Lower Wyandotte to Foothill s Oro D' m as operating at LOS D from SR 70 to Olive s dis pancy for us? IV Lincoln Blvd. as operating from A -C between Baggetts- -he FMEA shows this segment as D. sidential Projections: Change "buildout" to "built out". Page 2.8-27, Buildout of Las Plumas Study Area Roadway Levels of Service: Change Table 2.8-3 to 2.8-2. Figure 2.8-8 Year 2030 Roadway ADT: Please add a reference to this figure in the text. }, Table 2.8-9 (Year 2030 Conditions: Roadway LOS) and 2.8-10 (Buildout of LPSA: Roadway LOS): Shouldn't "2030 ADT" subheading be changed to "2030 Peak Hour Traffic Volume"? Final Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Screen Check Comments August 4, 2009 Page 4 of 5 `j 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Page 3.0-10, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: Change "Kussel" to "Kusel" / 4.0 REPORT PREPARATION N Please add to the Butte County staff: ✓ Tim Spellings..... Director of Development Services ✓ Pete Calarco..... Assistant Director ✓ Mark Michelena.... Senior Planner APPENDIX A Transportation Facility Improvements Impact Fee Estimates The Step 4 described here (Subtract revenues available fro to identify a total net facilities cost) has notyet,,, een comple sources have not been identified. Will this be Mc -luded in S;E Analysis? Fee Calculation Methodology: Delet&, for" in 1ST sentence Tra bas Plan f� d Methodology: n alternative funding sources ted. Alternative fu.ndmg ction 4.0 Fiscahlmn'act Final Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Screen Check Comments August 4, 2009 Page 5 of 5 revise the estimate Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecountv.neVdds , www.butte-generalplan.net ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING �,vT 0 ,� ;. r O0 omei, ,f0 . c�UN'�y MEMORANDUM „ TO: Scott Friend, PMC 'FROM: Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner r y F �V?f SUBJECT: Las Plumas Draft Master Environmental Assessment' r �wJ DATE: July 2, 2009 Dear Scott, The Department of Development Services would like to thank PMC"Omni-Means, and RAR for submitting the Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on June 5, 2009. As identified in Scope of Work for•the project, the intent to the MEA is to: f !i 'd ✓ Incorporate all identified issues concerning the Study Area; ✓ Review all existing technical studies for technical adequacy and completeness; V ✓ Identify data gaps and information needed to fully assess environmental conditions; .y ✓ Identify needed facilities, including the feasibility and necessity for "temporary" facilities; the need for equipment purchases; and the timing of potential new ` facilities. The subsequent scoped task (Section 4: Fiscal Analysis and Impact Fee Assessment)'is, intended to provide planning -level cost estimates for the needed facilities and services, for both the built -out condition and the 2030 planning horizon. This section of the document will be prepared and submitted in the next phase of the project, and is not further addressed in these comments. Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 ' Page 1 of 13 r l • Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecountv.neVdds , www.butte-generalplan.net ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING �,vT 0 ,� ;. r O0 omei, ,f0 . c�UN'�y MEMORANDUM „ TO: Scott Friend, PMC 'FROM: Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner r y F �V?f SUBJECT: Las Plumas Draft Master Environmental Assessment' r �wJ DATE: July 2, 2009 Dear Scott, The Department of Development Services would like to thank PMC"Omni-Means, and RAR for submitting the Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on June 5, 2009. As identified in Scope of Work for•the project, the intent to the MEA is to: f !i 'd ✓ Incorporate all identified issues concerning the Study Area; ✓ Review all existing technical studies for technical adequacy and completeness; V ✓ Identify data gaps and information needed to fully assess environmental conditions; .y ✓ Identify needed facilities, including the feasibility and necessity for "temporary" facilities; the need for equipment purchases; and the timing of potential new ` facilities. The subsequent scoped task (Section 4: Fiscal Analysis and Impact Fee Assessment)'is, intended to provide planning -level cost estimates for the needed facilities and services, for both the built -out condition and the 2030 planning horizon. This section of the document will be prepared and submitted in the next phase of the project, and is not further addressed in these comments. Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 ' Page 1 of 13 \1 Verbal comments and questions regarding Sections 2.5 (Storm Drainage), 2.6 (Sanitary Sewer), 2.7 (Domestic and Fire Protection Water) and 2.8 (Traffic and Circulation) were discussed with PMC, Omni -Means, and RAR by the Department of Development Services and Public Works on June 15, 2009. The comments below are intended to augment comments provided to PMC, Omni -Means and RAR at that meeting. 'An additional meeting was held with PW and DDS staff, Omni -Means, and City of Oroville staff on June 23, 2009 to discuss appropriate standards for improvements to specific roadways and intersections in the studies. A summary of agreements from that meeting is attached. The following comments complete the County's feedback regarding the Admin. DMEA. Sources of some comments are attributed in parentheses: GENERAL COMMENTS Title Please re -title the document consistent with the Scope of Work: Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment, Infrastructure Assessment, and Fiscal Impact Assessment. Funding for Services y Overall there is inadequate discussion regarding how services (operations) will be paid for, since the tax base most likely won't be sufficient to support additional �p personnel/services (e.g., fire, law enforcement, road maintenance/repair) (DCAO). This topic should be addressed in the Introduction (see below), with follow-through as appropriate elsewhere in the document. Figures �0� Please correct printout orientation of the full-page figures in the digital file. Adequacy of Specific Sections in Relation to the Scope of Work ✓ Section 1 Introduction - As noted above, the provision of services (as opposed c� to infrastructure) is not clearly addressed. Section 1.03 Type of Document should clarify that the MEA/FIA is not just a compilation of existing data, but also 1) an assessment of infrastructure and services needed to support the proposed projects; and 2) an assessment of the fiscal impact resulting from the identified 1Y needs, and an interim fee study. ✓ Section 2.2 Police and Fire Protection - As stated in the Scope of Work, this analysis should specify the additional facilities or equipment, potentially including. a new fire station, that are needed so that the Fiscal Impact Analysis can estimate resultant costs. Please complete and specify this information per the Scope. /. �, Q/ ✓ Section 2.4 Schools —Please clarify whether existing and planned schools are adequate to serve the proposed development. ✓ Section 2.5 Storm Drainage - No storm drainage fee study exists at this time. However, the outdated Wyman Ravine Study referred to in this section is not adequate for current planning needs. Please clarify per Public Works verbal comments on 6/15/09 that the County's on-site storm water detention/retention Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 2 of 13 standards are expected to address most storm water mitigation needs. Thi County further requests RAR to provide a clear recommendation in the document reg r Ing a area that s ou d be included in an u dated drains a study su cient o a ress any a I Iona Infrastructure needs in relation to ups ream or ✓ Section 2.8 Traffic and Circulation - o Refine cross sections using the agreements on standards reached during the June 23, 2009 discussion with the City of Oroville and County PW Department. o Clarify the proportion of each improvement that the proposed projects need to fund. ✓ Section 3.0 Potential Environmental Constraints - o The Scope of Work requires that this section "will include information obtained from the State of California LUST database, the Cortese list, and ✓ w other existing database sources." This hazardous waste site information is missing from the analysis. Please revise.to include this information. o The following environmental issues may pose potential constraints to development in the area, and should be included in the analysis: ■ Fire hazard (wildland fire) ■ Agricultural lands. o The Scope of Work requires that this section "include discussion of ~general mitigation or correction measures that could or may be implemented in subsequent evaluations to address the constraints dlld ti -e. identified in the MEA." Identified constraints consistof biological resources including oaks; cultural resources; flood and seismic hazards; and dam inundation. Please include a discussion of general mitigation or correction measures for these constraints per the Scope of Work. - ✓ All Sections: Proportionality - In the conclusion of each relevant section, �.�ple�asespeci��theproportion of the identified improvements that should beroposed projects. ✓ All Sections: Citation of Land Use Projections - Where a numerical estimate from Section 2.1 (Land Use Projections) is used in the analysis, please cite the source table or page. Study Area Acreage Discrepancies Pages 1.0-1, 2.0-1, 2.5-1, 2.6-1, 2.7-1: Study area is described as 2,246 acres. Paget -- 2.1-6 and 2.1-4 describe it as 2,007 acres. Please resolve this internal inconsistency. DETAILED COMMENTS Section 1.0 - Introduction Section 1.03 Type of Document " As noted above, this section should clarify that the MEA/FIA is not just a compilation of existing data, but also 1) an assessment of infrastructure and services needed to Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 3 of 13 V U-1- _ support the proposed projects; and 2) an assessment of the fiscal impact resulting from " the identified needs, and an interim fee study. Section 2.1 - Land Use Proiections Figure 2.1-3 Shapefile — The County requests the shapefile for Figure 2.1-3. Please �Jb Y✓ deliver the file to Principal Planner Stacey Jolliffe. Page 2.1-1 Section 2.1.1 Assumptions Under "Policy", first line, replace "existing (2008)" with "proposed... (Oroville 2030 General Plan)". Page 2.1-2 Growth Scenarios — Oroville GP Average Annual Growth (last line) Revise the 4.6 percent to 3.16 percent, consistent with the City's clarification of April 2009: It is unlikely that full buildout of this General Plan will occur over the next 25 years. The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) is currently projecting that the City of Oroville will grow at a compounded average rate of 4-6 3.16 percent a year over the next 25 years. The City utilized the BCAG growth projections for the City of Oroville as the basis for projecting growth in the greater Oroville area through the 25 -year horizon of the General Plan. Based on the BCAG City's growth projections, it is likely that approximately 13,800 units will be added to the area within the city limits and SOI. The ..expected 25 -year buildout, as shown in Table LU -5, would be an additional 13,800 dwelling units, for a total of 27,600 homes within the SOI. This corresponds to an annual growth rate of 2.93 percent. The City's projected growth rate is lower than BCA G's because the City's rate accounts for development within both the city limit and the SOI, including recently approved development in the SOI. Compared to BCAG's growth projections, the City projects a lower rate of development but considers a larger area. (Memo on the FEIR, http://www.citvoforoville.orq/index.aspx?page=302). f Page 2.1-2 Growth Scenarios Confirm that all growth rates noted in this section are expressed in compounded average 3 /annual growth rates, consistent with the BCAG correction noted above. / .Page 2.1-3 Pending Projects Growth It would be helpful to clarify that the Las Plumas area is one of the areas within the SOI targeted for growth under both the City's and the County's updated General Plans; thus it has a higher projected growth rate than the overall SOI. �P e 2.1-6, ✓ 15t paragraph — The Study Area is mostly within the City's proposed SOI under / the final Oroville 2030 General Plan. N ✓ 4th paragraph - Change "...more that 5 acres in size..." to "...more than... Page 2.1-9, second paragraph The last sentence is a fragment. Delete "although". Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 4 of 13 D Section 2.2 - Police and Fire Protection Page'2.2-1 Butte County Sheriff ✓ T Change "BOC (Board of Corrections)" to "CSA (Correction Standards Authority)". (BCSO) Page 2.2-5 Oroville Police Department ✓ Regarding the discussion of funding for additional service provision provided by a KoF combination of development fees and increases in the City's General Fund resulting from the expanding tax base: how will services be paid for, as they ' cannot be paid for with development fees? (Only infrastructure and possibly equipment can be paid for with development fees.) Further, residential development does not pay for itself through the increased tax -base (DCAO). ✓ Regarding the Public Review Draft MSR: The statement that "One contributing factor to the higher crime rate appears to be the large unincorporated population adjacent to the City which does not have similar officer coverage" is in the Draft MSR for the City of Oroville. However, the County does not agree with the °' a statement, nor is any substantive evidence presented to support it. Please delete this assertion from the DMEA (DCAO). Page 2.2-6 Public Defender Please clarify here that the Public Defender Services are funded by the County's General Fund. There are no state or federal funds that pay for that service (DCAO). y ,9 Page 2.2-7 Butte County Jail Please clarify that the jail houses people taken into custody by all law enforcement ✓ d,Ok-�� _'•agencies within Butte County, not just BCSO and CHP. The cities and Town also send their arrestees to the County jail (DCAO). —Page 2.2-7 and Table 2.2.1-1 Potential Need for Law Enforcement Services ✓ Please correct spelling of sheriff here and throughout document, including tables. ✓ Does the need for additional officers imply a need for additional facilities or equipment to house these officers or provide timely services to the Study Area? If so, please specify facilities needed. Page 2.2-8 — 2.2-9 EI Medio Fire Protection District Please confirm the statement that there are 11 burned -out residences in the EI Medio Fire District, and whether these pose a public health and safety hazard, before completing the public draft. Is further information available regarding these properties? (DCAO). Pages 2.2-9 — 2.2-11 and Table 2.2.2-1 EI Medio Apparatus/Vehicles The inventory of fire engines at EI Medio appears to be based on an outdated study. However, the information does not have a major impact on the report. Please confirm this information if feasible before completing the public draft (CAL FIRE/BCF). Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 5 of 13 ,j Jew Page 2.2-14 Response Time Please delete the sentence "The Butte County General Plan does not identify an average response time goal for fire services throughout the County", and replace it with the response time goals that have been adopted by the County and that are included in the Administrative Draft Butte County General Plan 2030 as Policies PUB -P2.1 -P2.3 (attached). Do these policies imply different infrastructure or service needs that should be specified in this section? Page 2.2-15 ✓ Butte LAFCO MSR — 3`" line: Change are to were. ✓ Butte County Fire Department - Confirm the number of County stations. The County recently counted these and found 26, not 31, County stations (DCAO). Page 2.2-16 Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Agreements Please correct - the Fire Emergency Command Center (ECC) also provides dispatching for Biggs and Gridley (DCAO). gjor _ Page 2.2-17 Automatic Aid Agreements Please clarify the automatic aid agreement referenced for Oroville is between Oroville, EI Medio, and BCFD. CAL FIRE is not a signatory on that agreement. (DCAO). J Page 2.2-17 Oroville Fire Department — Service Standards The Public Facilities and Services Element of the updated Oroville General Plan 2030 (http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=302) contains updated policies regarding fire response, including: P2.1 Maintain and enhance strategies to ensure adequate first response travel time of three to five minutes to incidents and travel time of ten minutes or less for additional resources within 90 percent of the call volume. Please revise the analysis if needed to address the updated information. Page.2.2-21 Uniform Fire Code Please clarify that, although incorporated jurisdictions within Butte County have adopted the Uniform Fire Code, Butte County has not (DCAO). Page 2.2-22 Potential Need for Additional Fire Protection Services ✓ As stated in the Scope of Work, this analysis should specify the additional facilities or equipment, potentially including a new fire station, needed so that the Fiscal Impact Analysis can estimate resultant costs. Please complete and specify this information per the Scope. ✓ PMC previously recommended to the County preparation of a Development Impact Fee Study for the EI Medio Fire Protection District as part of this project. However, this -was before EI Medio District voters approved an increase to their assessment fee. Where will PMC address whether a development impact fee S study is still needed: in this Section 2.2, or in Section 4 (Fiscal Analysis and W Impact Fee Assessment)? Section 2.3 Parks and Recreation Page 2.3-9 Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 6 of 13 (9 / V' Developer Impact Fees vv The discussion below regarding Development Impact Fees for FRRPD asserts that the City of Oroville collects the impact fees collected for building in the unincorporated area. Please verify this statement before including it in the public draft: FRRPD estimates that it will receive approximately $1,000 for each new home built in the unincorporated areas. This is due to the fact that the City of Oroville collects the fees, divides the fees into categories for regional parks and neighborhood parks and retains sole control of what projects FRRPD can build using fees. (DCAO). ✓ : Figure 2.3-2 Bikeway Plan Both the County's and the City's bicycle plan maps should be referenced in this section. The City's 2009 Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan is posted at _ http://www.cityoforoville.orq/index.aspx?page=302. J Table 2.3-5 Pending Projects Open Space/Parkland ✓ Does the open space proposed by the projects and as shown in this table, meet FRRPD criteria for parkland types (i.e., as parks, linear parks, or trails?) / ✓ The Oroville 2030 General Plan proposes the following parks and open space in V the study area: Southside -Las Plumas community park; South of Monte Vista Ave. Vicinity neighborhood park; Southwest Side Wyman Ravine Open Space (Figure OPS -1, Memo on the FEIR, posted at % http://www.cityoforoville.orq/index.aspx?page=302.). Please incorporate this ,a ' information into the analysis as appropriate. Section 2.4 Schools Table 2.4-11 Capacity and Enrollment 'The Scope of Work states: "PMC will identify what improvements will be needed based upon input and service standards in the Oroville Public School District." The table -appears to show existing deficiencies (Helen Wilcox Elementary School has 101 -: students over capacity) as well as the need to provide facilities for the additional ' students generated by proposed development in the Las Plumas area. However, the section does not offer any conclusions regarding what facilities are needed. Please 'clarify in the text whether existing and planned schools are adequate to serve the -proposed development. Section 2.5 Storm Drainage Scope of Work No storm drainage fee study exists at this time. However, the outdated Wyman Ravine Study referred to in this section is not adequate for current planning needs. Please clarify per Public Works comments on 6/15/09 that the County's on-site storm water detention/retention standards are expected to address most storm water mitigation needs. The County further requests RARto proyid ar recommendation in the docume� re«ard_ a a� o 3—einc u ed in an updated drainage study sufficient to Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 7 of 13 nw address any additional infrastructure needs in relation to upstream or downstream drainage. / Page 2.5-1 Existing Storm Drainage Conditions ✓ 1st paragraph: Please correct —the Study Area is mostly within the City's / proposed SOI. 4th par, last sentence - Change final word "east" to "west" (PW). ✓ 3`d paragraph —Figure 2.5-1 is missing from the document. Page 2.5-2 Existing Infrastructure Deficiencies The MEA is intended to determine the adequacy of existing information regarding infrastructure. Please clarify that the 1981 Wyman Ravine Watershed Drainage Study is inadequate to determine current storm drainage facility deficiencies (see preceding comment). Page 2.5-3 Section 2.5.4 Storm Drainage Facility Funding Change "activities" at end of second sentence to "of storm drainage facilities" (PW) Section 2.6 Sanitary Sewer / Figure 2.6-1 LOAPUD District Boundary and SOI v Can this figure be made more legible? r Page 2.6-4 Existing Collection System Capacity Please specify the EDU conversion ratio noted in the first sentence. / Table 2.6-4 SC -OR Fee Schedule V Please revise header of right-hand column (i.e., $4,183 is not a monthly service rate). Table 2.6-6 Existing Wastewater Flows Please clarify in a footnote that, although this tabulates existing wastewater flows, it groups these according to future land use designations under Butte County General Plan 2030. I/ Section 2.7 Domestic and Fire Protection Water Section 2.7.3 Required Improvements to Serve the Study Area ✓ Please clarify that additional capacity may be needed on a project -by -project basis. �✓ Please confirm whether there would be a capital component to the steel pipe replacement program. Section 2.8 Traffic and Circulation Comments from Departments of Public Works and Planning (6-15-09) ✓ Refine cross sections using standards as agreed to in 6/23/09 meeting with City of Oroville. Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment r Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 8 of 13 �q ra -dam ✓ Clarify proportion of each improvement that proposed projects need to fund. QI ✓ For Roadway 7A, confirm improvement standard that will accommodate the / maximum traffic volume. `� ✓ Re -check volume numbers on Oro Dam Boulevard. �/ ✓ Confirm Roadway LOS targets and thresholds — see attached. ✓ Georgia-Pacific Bypass — see attached. (J,, ✓ Clarify in text the standards for improvement for roundabouts vs. traffic signals. ✓ Correct Figures 2.8-1,-10,-16,-17,-19,-20,-22 to match text. ✓ -Table 2.8-11 — Correct intersection at Ophir/Lincoln Blvd; also intersection 24 at Baggett-Marysville Road where there is no track crossing; also roundabout at .. Monte Vista where County plans to put in a 4 -way stop and signal. ✓ Monte Vista and/or Las Plumas may be closed to accommodate changes to the Las Plumas High School site. This should be confirmed with the school district during public review. Table 2.8-2 Butte County — ADT Level -Of -Service (LOS) thresholds for Roadways Consistent with our agreement with PW and the City of Oroville on June 23, 2009, the DMEA, will use peak -hour rather than ADT measurement. Please see attachment regarding LOS thresholds, and revise to include the corrected information. Bicycle Facilities Please ensure that the roadway improvements analysis is coordinated with planned r bicycle facility improvements in the area. The County's Bike Master Plan for the area is addressed in Section 2.3 (Parks and Recreation) of the MEA. The City's 2009 Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan is posted at http://www.citvoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=302, and should be consulted to ensure connectivity with bicycle facilities in the incorporated area. ~Pages 2.8-3 and 2.8-4 Please title and number the tables on theseP 9 a es. Page 2.8-10 Target Thresholds and Table 2.8-1 ✓ .Clarify the source of each LOS threshold and the source of the standard for setting the threshold. Sample text: "Intersections within the City of Oroville incorporated area were evaluated using adopted policies for acceptable LOS levels in the adopted City of -Oroville 2030 General Plan. This analysis uses a target LOS of D in the Sphere of Influence, consistent with the City of Oroville General Plan 2030, the current Butte ,County General Plan, and the draft Butte County General Plan 2030. California ,Department of Transportation threshold standards were utilized for state improvements." Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 9 of 13 ✓ Clarify that traffic volume thresholds for defining all levels of service were drawn from the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual and are consistent with draft Butte County General Plan 2030. Page 2.8-11 Please repaginate this section — there are two pages numbered 2.8-11 ✓Fage 2.8-13, first line after table 2.8-5 ...the following roadway segment is currently projected to..." / Page 2.8-18 Land Use Adjustments �V Please clarify the following sentence: "Based on a review of the land uses within the TAZ's, it ^ / was found that existing units within the TAZ's were lower than 1,688." (V Figures 2.8-6 and 2.8-10 The yellow text is difficult to read in printout — can these be made more legible? Table 2.8-8 Year 2030 Conditions: Intersection LOS Please clarify in the text whether this table represents conditions before or after improvements. Figure—. Road Improvement Sections Please title and number this figure per our discussion on 6/15. Also revise per agreement reached during the June 23, 2009 meeting with Public Works and City of Oroville staff. Section 3.0 Potential Environmental Constraints Scope of Work ✓ The Scope requires that this section "will include information obtained from the State of California LUST database, the Cortese list, and other existing database sources." This hazardous waste site information is missing from the analysis. Please revise to include this information. ✓ The following environmental issues may pose potential constraints to / development in the area,.and should be included in the analysis: ✓ o Fire hazard (wildland fire) o Agricultural lands. ✓ The Scope of Work requires that this section "include discussion of general mitigation or correction measures that could or may be implemented in subsequent evaluations to address the constraints identified in the MEA." Identified constraints include biological resources including oaks; cultural resources; flood and seismic hazards; and dam inundation. Other potential constraints are identified in the previous comment. Please include a discussion of general mitigation or correction measures for these constraints per the Scope of Work. Page 3.0-1 Biological Resources, 3'd paragraph Please revise as ..."and predominately consists of grasslands..." Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 10 of 13 V . f Section 5.0 Report Preparation ✓ Please correct_ my title to "Principal Planner/ LPMEA Project Manager". ✓ Correct'Stacey Jolliffe's title to "Principal Planner'. ✓ Add "Chuck Thistlethwaite ... Planning Manager'. i Appendix C , The yellow text in these figures is not legible. Please improve their legibility. Attachments: ✓ Memo to Omni -Means: Final Summary Notes from June 23, 2009 Meeting with , City of Oroville ✓ Adopted Butte County Fire Response Time Goals (as listed in Admin.Draft Butte County General Plan 2030 Policies PUB -P2.1 -P2.3) Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 11 of 13 Memo to Omni -Means: Final Summary Notes from June 23, 2009 Meeting with The potential future South Oroville bypass is being carried forward from the City of Oroville's 1995 General Plan. It may be deemed necessary to build this bypass in order to alleviate congestion on Highway 70, Oro Dam Boulevard, Olive Highway and Ophir Road. However, the traffic analysis of the horizon buildout conditions under the 2030 General Plan indicates that this bypass likely will not be necessary before 2030. At the meeting we discussed this conceptual alignment and its potential effects on the analysis. You proposed to complete the analysis without the bypass and indicated that it appears from your work thus far that Oro Dam Boulevard can be improved to meet LOS targets without the bypass. However, should the analysis show Oro Dam falling below its target LOS of E, a change in scope and budget would be needed to re -run the analysis using the bypass. The County hereby authorizes this approach. The DMEA should ��indicate that the City's FEIR acknowledges that its planned fee program may be insufficient to pay for planned improvements (Oroville 2030 FEIR, p. 2-6). ✓ Future Conditions Horizon Year — Our Planning staff believes that the MEA model created by Fehr and Peers represents Year 2030. However, specific traffic engineering Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 12 of 13 City of Oroville ✓ Roadway Cross -Section Standards - Stu Edell and Charles Rutter of Omni -Means have exchanged the necessary information regarding the County standards. In addition to this information, I have forwarded the draft roadway improvement standards provided by the City, which should be used with the following update exception: o The minimum structural section for the four lane surface street should be 6" (not 5") AC over 14" AB and 3" AC over 12" AB for all the other streets. ✓ The information you have now represents full agreement by all parties. Roadway LOS Thresholds — Both acceptable LOS thresholds, and the use of peak -hour . values were confirmed at the meeting. LOS targets will be based on policies in both Butte County General Plan 2030 and the recently adopted Oroville General Plan 2030. 1 have previously forwarded the County's draft policy regarding LOS, which states: CIR-P6.1 The level of service for County -maintained mads within the unincorporated areas of the County but outside municipalities' spheres of influence (SOls) shall be level of service (LOS) C or better. Within a municipality's SOI, the level of service shall meet the municipality's level of service policy (Policy Alts 26. a). The City's Traffic and Circulation policies include the following: P2.1 Maintain a minimum operating standard of LOS D as defined in the most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual or subsequent revisions for all arterial, collector streets and intersections, except the following facilities where a LOS E will be acceptable. LOS E operations will be considered acceptable for intersection and roadway segment operations along Oroville Dam Boulevard between Highway 70 and Olive Highway. (Memo to the FEIR, http://www.citvoforoville.orq/index.aspx?page=302). We also agreed that "conventional" traffic volume thresholds, rather than the City's thresholds, will be used in the analysis of LOS levels. Oro Dam Bypass Alignment — The conceptual Oro Dam Boulevard bypass is shown in Figure CIR-10 of the City's General Plan, (Memo to the FEIR, see link above). The relevant text from the City's memo states: The potential future South Oroville bypass is being carried forward from the City of Oroville's 1995 General Plan. It may be deemed necessary to build this bypass in order to alleviate congestion on Highway 70, Oro Dam Boulevard, Olive Highway and Ophir Road. However, the traffic analysis of the horizon buildout conditions under the 2030 General Plan indicates that this bypass likely will not be necessary before 2030. At the meeting we discussed this conceptual alignment and its potential effects on the analysis. You proposed to complete the analysis without the bypass and indicated that it appears from your work thus far that Oro Dam Boulevard can be improved to meet LOS targets without the bypass. However, should the analysis show Oro Dam falling below its target LOS of E, a change in scope and budget would be needed to re -run the analysis using the bypass. The County hereby authorizes this approach. The DMEA should ��indicate that the City's FEIR acknowledges that its planned fee program may be insufficient to pay for planned improvements (Oroville 2030 FEIR, p. 2-6). ✓ Future Conditions Horizon Year — Our Planning staff believes that the MEA model created by Fehr and Peers represents Year 2030. However, specific traffic engineering Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 12 of 13 expertise may be needed to clarify this point. If you need confirmation on this point from the County and/or Fehr and Peers I am available to assist. Oroville Gold Project We also discussed the Oroville Gold proposal during the meeting. You indicated that you did not expect this project to change the cost implications of the infrastructure analysis. You also indicated that incorporating this proposed project into the model would require a / budget augmentation. The County hereby authorizes the traffic analysis without incorporating the Oroville Gold project It would be helpful to identify in the text the number of acres, residential units/other uses under Butte County General Plan 2030 that would be altered by this proposed project. Administrative Draft Butte County General Plan 2030 - Circulation Element I previously forwarded the Circulation Element, as well as a scan of Appendix B — Existing and Future Levels of LOS. The policies in these documents should be consistent with what we have discussed to date. Please note that these documents are for Omni - Means' use in the MEA only, and may not be further distributed. w Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 13 of 13 CIT PMC®. INVOICE 2729 Prospect Park Drive JAN 1 '4 2010 Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 DEVELOPMENT MVICE9 Charles Thistlethwaite `1'v January 12, 2010 County of Butte �� I I p g Invoice No:. 30287 7 County Center Drive iLl( Oroville, CA 95965 Project Manager Scott Friend Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Billing Group -004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code .' 03 " Revise Draft MEA/ Prepare Final MEA Total this Labor -Code Professional Personnel Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 12/11/09 1.00 110.00 110,00 Friend, Scott 12/15/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 12/23/092.00 110.00 220.00 Totals 5.00 12%1/09 550.00 Total Labor 110.00 Public Finance Assistant 550.00 $550.00 Total this Labor -Code Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner .Friend, Scott 12/31/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 12%1/09 ..1.00 110.00 110.00 Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia 12/1/09 4.25 75.00 318.75 Light, Julia 12/2/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light; Julia 12/10/09 2.50 75.00 187.50 Light,. Julia 12/11/09 1.00 75.00 75.00 Light, Julia 12/14/09 2.00 75.00 150.00 Light, Julia 12/16/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light, Julia 12/21/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light, Julia 12/23/09 1.00 75.00 75.00 Light, Julia .12/28/09 2.50 75.00 187.50 Light, Julia 12/29/09 3.50 75.00 262.50 550.00 $550.00 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice30287 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice .$2,363.75 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 29504 10/6/09 16,847.18 29707 11/8/09 20,261.25 .29986 12/6/09 2,325.00 Total 39,433.43 Page 3 December 30, 2009 Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner BUTTE COUNTY 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: LAS PLUMAS MEA - BUDGET CLARIFICATION MEMO (INV. #29504 AND #29707) Dear Claudia: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up with you per your request to clarify PMC invoices #29504 and #29707 for the purposes of allowing the County of Butte to authorize payment to PMC for services rendered in furtherance of the Las Plumas MEA project (PMC Project Number 26-0170 BG004). In your original email on this matter dated 11/30/09, you indicated via a large matrix inserted into the text of the email message that the County had the following budget amounts assigned or allocated to the project tasks and the resulting fund balances: Based upon our review of your data, it appears that our allocation of labor charges to each task was slightly different than yours thus resulting in the over -charge to Task 6 on Invoices 29504 and 29707. 1 would note however that the total amount billed to -date figure on your records matches the total in our records. Thus it appears as if the confusion was related to the internal allocation of budget between the various individual Tasks. We have gone back through the invoice history and validated that the numbers shown in your matrix represent a reasonable depiction of the current status of the project budget. To make sure that we can complete the project without the need to seek additional funding, we have always anticipated the need to fully utilize the budget available in each Task line item as we move forward. To this end, and to address your comment regarding the need to clarify the budget to eliminate any overage shown for Task 6, PMC would clarify that of the $2,710 shown as the total overage amount 140 Independence Cir, Suite C • Chico, CA 95973 • P: (530) 894-3469 • F: (530) 894-6459 www.pmcwortd.com (866) 828-6PMC Billed to Date Balance Task 1: $3,180 $1,620 Task 2: $152,776 $1,611 Task 3: $2,820 $7,380 Task 4: $50,496 $19,504 Task 5: $5,832 $1,218 Task 6: $7,095 ($2,710) Total Billed: $222,199 $31,163 Based upon our review of your data, it appears that our allocation of labor charges to each task was slightly different than yours thus resulting in the over -charge to Task 6 on Invoices 29504 and 29707. 1 would note however that the total amount billed to -date figure on your records matches the total in our records. Thus it appears as if the confusion was related to the internal allocation of budget between the various individual Tasks. We have gone back through the invoice history and validated that the numbers shown in your matrix represent a reasonable depiction of the current status of the project budget. To make sure that we can complete the project without the need to seek additional funding, we have always anticipated the need to fully utilize the budget available in each Task line item as we move forward. To this end, and to address your comment regarding the need to clarify the budget to eliminate any overage shown for Task 6, PMC would clarify that of the $2,710 shown as the total overage amount 140 Independence Cir, Suite C • Chico, CA 95973 • P: (530) 894-3469 • F: (530) 894-6459 www.pmcwortd.com (866) 828-6PMC in Task 6 based upon invoices 29504 ($2,845) and 29707 ($990), those monies should be reallocated as follows: Invoice #29504: Reallocate the $2,845 dollars invoiced to Task 6 as $1,620 to Task I and $1,225 to Task 3. This action would zero -out the budget for Task I and reduce the budget for Task 3 to $6,155. Invoice 29707: Remove $990 dollars invoiced to Task 6 and reallocate that cost as $990 to Task 3. This would result in a total of $5,165 remaining in the budget for Task 3. Thank you for your observation of this point of difference and I hope that this memo will meet your needs relative to clarification of the two (2) invoices about which you requested clarification. If this memo does not meet your needs in regard to a resolution to this matter, or if.you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to work on this project with you. Sincerely, KI Scott Friend, AICP Project Manager Cc: Alannah Robinson, PMC Deborah DeBrunner, Butte County Total this Labor Code $165.00 Labor Code. 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Director of Municipal Finance BUTTE Bandy, Tom COUNTY 1.00 1.55.00 155.00 NOV 10/13/09 PMc INVOICE 155.00 Bandy, Tom 10/16/09 2729 Prospect Park Drive DEVELOPMENT. SERVICES 155.00 Senior Planner Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 8/4/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 8/5/09 Charles Thistlethwaite 110.00 November 8, 2009 County of Butte �, �(,�' Invoice No: 29707 7 County Center Drive Friend, Scott 8/7/09 , 3.00 Oroville, CA 95965 330.00 Project Manager Scott Friend °Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 110.00 Professional Services from Sea mber 26, 2009 to October 30, 2009 � Friend, Scott Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project 110.00 Labor Code 03 Revise Draft MEA/ Prepare Final MEA 9/2/09 .50 Professional Personnel 55.00 Friend, Scott 9/8/09 1.00 Hours Rate Amount Wong, Derek Assistant Planner .75 110.00 82.50 Anderson, Nathan 8/18/09 1.50 60.00 90.00 Administrative 1 Neuvert, Makayle 8/11/09 .25 60.00 15.00 Neuvert, Makayle 9/2/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Totals 2.75 165.00 Total Labor -. 165.00 Total this Labor Code $165.00 Labor Code. 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Director of Municipal Finance Bandy, Tom 10/9/09 1.00 1.55.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 10/13/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 10/16/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Senior Planner Friend, Scott 8/4/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 8/5/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 8/6/09 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 8/7/09 , 3.00 110.00 330.00 Friend, Scott 8/31/09 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 9/1/09 2.50 110.00 275.00 Friend, Scott 9/2/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 9/8/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong, Derek 9/29/09 .75 110.00 82.50 Project 26-0170€0 Wong, Derek. .Wong, Derek Wong, Derek...-,.-- Wong, erek._.-:Wong, Derek Wong, Derek Wong, Derek., Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia'`" .Light, Julia 'Light, Julia .Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Assistant Planner Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Nathan Totals Total Labor Labor Code 05 Professional Personnel BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29707 APPLICATIONS 10/7/09 10/8/09 10/9/09 10/13/09 10/22/09 10/30/09 9/28/09 9/29/09 9/30/09 10/1/09 10/2/09 10/5/09 10/6/09 10/7/09 10/8/09 10/9/09 .10/12/09 10/13/09 10/14/09 10/15/09 10/16/09 40/19/09 10/20/09, 10/21/09 10/22/09 10/23/09 10/26/09 10/27/09 10/28/09 10/29/09 10/30/09 8/3/09 8/4/09 Meetings & Presentations 1.00 110.00 1.00 110.00 1.00 110.00 2.00. - 110.00 1.00 110.00 1.00.'. .:110.00 8.00 75.00 7.50 75.00 8.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 6.50 75.00 8.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 7.50 75.00 8.00 75.00 7.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 .4.00 75.00 . 8.00- 75.00 6.50 ' 75.00 6.00 75.00 6.75 75.00 5.50 75.00 4.00 75.00 . 8.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 6.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 8.00 75.00 2.00 60.00 4.00 60.00 208.50 110.00 110.00 110.00 220.00 110.00 110.00 600.00 562.50 600.00 600.00 600.00 487.50 600.00 600.00 562.50 600.00 525.00 600.00 . 600.00 300.00' 600.00 487.50 .. 450.00- 506.25 412.50 300.00 600.00 600.00 450.00 600.00 600.00 120.00 240.00 16,496.25 16,496.25 Total this Labor Code $16,496.25 Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 8/10/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Page 2 Labor Code 06 Modified/ Additional Task, Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate Senior Planner Friend, Scott Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29707 Friend, Scott APPLICATIONS .50 .110.00 Friend, Scott Friend, Scott 8/11/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 8/12/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 8/13/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 8/14/09. 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 8/17/09.-.-. 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 8/19/09.. 4.00 110.00 440.00 Assistant Planner Anderson, Nathan 8/7/09 3.50 60.00 210.00 Anderson, Nathan 8/11/09 5.00 60.00 300.00 Anderson, Nathan 8/14/09 5.00 60.00 300.00 Anderson, Nathan 8/17/09 8.00 60.00 480.00 Totals 33.50 2,610.00 Total Labor 2,610.00 Total this Labor Code $2,610.00 Labor Code 06 Modified/ Additional Task, Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate Senior Planner Friend, Scott 9/9/09 2.50 110.00 Friend, Scott 9/16/09 .50 .110.00 Friend, Scott 9/17/09 2.50 110.00 Friend, Scott 9/18/09 1.50 110.00 Friend, Scott 10/9/09 .50 110.00 Friend, Scott 10/20/09 1.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 10/29/09 .50 110.00 Totals 9.00 Total Labor Billing Limits Total Billings Limit Remaining Amount 275.00 55.00. 275.00 165.00 55.00 110.00 55.00 990.00 '990.00 Total this Labor Code $990.00 Current Prior To -Date 20,261.25 201, 938.06 222,199.31 253, 362.00 31,162.69 Total this Billing Group $20,261.25 Page 3 Project 26-0170. BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29707 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $20,261.25 Outstanding Invoices 'Number Date Balance 29504 10/6/09 16,847.18 Total 16,847.18 Page 4 PMC IN COUNTY Suite 220 Prospect Park Drive OCT u 8 2009 O Cµ'� Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Charles Thistlethwaite County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Project 26-0170 Professional Services from SERVICES � 1 �Ot October 6, 2009 �~ Invoice No: 29504 ..-..Pxoject Manager Scott Friend BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Billing. Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Director of Municipal Finance Bandy, Tom 9/3/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom' 9/16/09 1:00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/17/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/21/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/23/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Senior Planner Serafini, Dino 9/1/09 1.00 1.10.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 9/3/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Serafini, Dino 9/4/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Serafini, Dino 9/5/09 8.00 110.00 880.00 Serafini, Dino 9/21/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong, Derek 8/31/09 .25 110.00 27.50 Wong; Derek 9/1/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong,Derek 9/8/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong, Derek, 9/18/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Wong, Derek 9/22/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong, Derek 9/23/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia 8/31/09 8.00 75.00 600.00' Light, Julia 9/1/09 7.75 75.00 581.25. Light, Julia 9/2/09.,. 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/3/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/4/09 7.75 75.00 58125 .Light, Julia 9/.8/09. 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/9/09 6.50 75.00 487.50 Light; Julia 9/10/09 9.50 75.00 712.50 Project 26=017041 Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Totals Total Labor BUTTE. COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29504 APPLICATIONS 9/11109 8.00 75.00 600.00 9/14/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 9/15/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 9/16/09 7.75 75.00 581..25 9/17/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 9/18/09 :.: 8:00 75.00.:.: , . ; 6.00-.0.0.. 9/21/09 ; > .... -: 8:00 75:00 .. _... 600.00 9/22/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 9/23/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 9/24/09 7.50 75.00 562.50 9/25/09 6.50 75.00 487.50 Granville, Dustin 172.00 3.00 13,921.25 13,921.25 Total this Labor Code $13,921.25 Labor Code 06 Modified/ Additional Task Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 9/22/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 9/25/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Senior GIS Analyst DeMartino,. John 9/10/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Assistant Planner Granville, Dustin 8/4/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 8/5/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 8/10/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/4/09 3.00 .60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/6/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/11/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/12/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth 8/13/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/14/09 6.00 60.00 360.00. Myers, Seth 8/17/09 1.00 60.00. 60.00 Myers, Seth 8/18/09 5.00 60.00 300.00 Myers, Seth 8/19/09 4.00 60.00 240.00 Myers, Seth 9/1/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 9/3/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Totals 44.50 2,845.00 Total Labor - . 2,845.00 Total this Labor Code $2,845.00 u v.: Page 2 ff,4 Project 26-0170 BUTTE"COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29504 APPLICATIONS Labor Code EXP Expenses Reimbursable Expenses Mileage 8/19/09 Friend, Scott Las Plumas MEA Meeting 25.30 Phone & Communications 9/9/09 Unlimited Conferencing Conference Call _ 26.79 9/9/09 Unlimited' Conferencing Conference Call 28.84 Total Reimbursables 80.93 80.93 Total this Labor Code $80.93 Billing Limits Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 16,847.18 185,090.88 201,938.06 Limit. 253,362.00 Remaining 51,423.94 Total this Billing Group $16,847.18 Page 3 Project ' :: .26-0170 r BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Invoice29504 $16,847.18 Page 4 Total this Invoice Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 28949 7/10/09 26,206.22 29120 8/10/09 14,271.01 29438 9/17/09` 4,743.75 Total 45,220.98 Invoice29504 $16,847.18 Page 4 fi PMC INVOICE 2729 Prospect Park Drive Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Charles Thistlethwaite . 101 December 6, 2009 County of Butte 0JQ Invoice No: 29986 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Project. 26-01.70 Project Manager Scott Friend BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 31 2009 to Noyernber;'27,,200"9 Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Public Finance Assistant Light; Julia .11/2/09 6.50 75.00 487.50 Light, Julia 11/3/09 6.5.0 75.00 487.50 -Light,.Julia 11/4/09 7.50 75.00 562.50 Light, Julia 11/10/09 -3.00 75.00 225.00 Light, Julia 11/13/09 3:50 75.00 262.50 Light, -Julia 11/17/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light, Julia 11/19/09 2.50 75.00 187.50 Totals 31.00 2,325.00 Billing Limits Total Billings Limit Remaining Total Labor 2 325 00 Total this Labor Code $2,325.00 Current Prior To -Date 2,325.00 222,199.31 224,524.31 253,362.00 28,837.69 Total this Billing Group $2,325.00 , t ,Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice 29986 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $2,325.00 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 29504 10/6/09 16,847.18 29707 11/8/09 20,261.25 Total 37,108.43 Page 2. copy Cfi PMC INVOICE COUNTY s' 2729 Prospect Park Drive suite . OCT u 8 2009 220 1 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 I3Ls !/.;;:. ;?PNMNT SIERVICES BATT.. . Charles Thistlethwaite C® October 6, 2009 County of Butte Invoice No: 29504 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 ' �` _...• F.. y Manager Scott Friend Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Professional Services fror aAsugust29'2009�to September 25" 2Q09 `f Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Director of Municipal Finance Bandy, Tom 9/3/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/16/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/17/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/21/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 9/23/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Senior Planner Serafini, Dino. 9/1/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 ' Serafini, Dino 9/3/09 50 110.00 55.00 Serafini, Dino 9/4/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 t Serafini, Dino 9/5/09 8.00 110.00 880.00 Serafini, Dino 9/21/09 1.00 110.00 110.00, Wong, Derek 8/31/09 .25 110.00 ' 27.50 r` Wong, Derek 9/1/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong,. Derek 9/8/09. 1.00 110.00 110.00 Wong, Derek 9/18/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Wong, Derek 9/22/09 1.00 N 110.00 110.00 Wong, Derek 9/23/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia, 8/31/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/1/09 7.75 75.00 581..25. Light', Julia 9/2/09 8.00 .75.00 600.00 ' Light, Julia: 9/3/09 8.00 75.00 '600.00 Light, Julia 9/4/09 , 7.75 75.00 581.25 Light, Julia, 9/8/09. 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia" 9/9/09 6.50 75.00 487.50 Light, Julia 9/10/09 9.50 75.00 712.50 If Page 2 Proj \tw 26-0170 ' BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice 29504 / APPLICATIONS Light, Julia 9/11/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/14/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/15/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia .. 9/16/09 7.75 75.00 581.25 Light, Julia 9/17/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia-.. 9/18/09. 8:00 75.00:.:. 600.00 Light, Julia 9/21/09 ':.:"' - . -8:00 75.-00 600'.00 Light, Julia 9/22/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/23/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 9/24/09 7.50 75.00 562.50 Light, Julia 9/25/09 6.50 75.00 487.50 Totals 172.00 13,921.25 Total Labor 13,921.25 Total this Labor Code $13,921.25 Labor Code 06 Modified/ Additional Task Effort Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 9/22/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Friend, Scott 9/25/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Senior GIS Analyst DeMartino,. John 9/10/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Assistant Planner Granville, Dustin 8/4/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 8/5/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 8/10/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/4/09 3.00 .60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/6/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/11/09 3.00. 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/12/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth 8/13/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 8/14/09 6.00 60.00 360.00. Myers, Seth 8/17/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 8/18/09 5.00 60.00 300.00 Myers, Seth 8/19/09 4.00 60.00 240.00 Myers, Seth 9/1/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 9/3/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Totals 44.50 2,845.00 Total Labor 2,845.00 Total this Labor Code $2,845.00 If Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29504 APPLICATIONS Labor Code EXP Expenses Reimbursable Expenses ` Mileage ,. 8/19/09 Friend, Scott Las Plumas MEA Meeting 25.30 Phone & Communications 9/9/09 Unlimited Conferencing Conference Call { 26.79 9/9/09 Unlimited Conferencing Conference Call 28.84 Total Reimbursables 80.93 80.93 Total this Labor Code $80.93 Billing Limits Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 16,847.18 185,090.88 201,938.06 Limit. 253,362.00 Remaining 51,423.94 Total this Billing Group $16,847.18 E, Project 26-01:70 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29504 _APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $16,847.18 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 28949 7/10/09 26,206.22 29120 8/10/09 14,271.01 29438 9/17/09 4,743.75 Total 45,220.98 Page 4 D EC E 0 V E OCT - 7 2009 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Project Planner Claudia Stuart Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Eco -Analysts 1469 Humboldt Road Suite 100 Chico, CA 95928 (530)342-5991 FAX (530) 342-1553 October 5th, 2009' _ r _. r Comments on the Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment To Whom It May Concern: Eco -Analysts has been retained by Jeff Ashlock to review the Draft Las Plumas [Study Area] Master Environmental.Assessment, Infrastructure Assessment,: and Fiscal Impact Assessment ("LPSA MEA") prepared -by Pacific.Municipal Consultants (`:`PMC") and dated August -12, 2009: Mr. Ashlock submitted°an application fo.deyelop:approximately 50 acres at the southeastern corner of Ophir Road and Lincoln Road south of Oroville. These plans were deemed, complete by the County in May of 2007. Subsequently, Mr. Ashlock agreed to allow. his project review to .be coordinated with the development of the proposed, LPSA MEA to be conducted by PMC. Initially; development of this document was projected to be a 6 -month process and would not add an appreciable burden to our Client's review process. Almost 2 %2 years later, this project is understandably suffering due to the lack of timely review. Several areas of concern have come to light regarding the assumptions used and conclusions drawn in the current draft LPSA MEA. The following outline details some of these concerns. General Comments 1. The Las Plumas..Study Area is. inconsistentlydescribed concerning study area ..'acreage:. „a, `. Reported'as 2,007 acres (3.13- sg mi) b. Reported as 2,247 acres (3 51 sq:mi); c. ' A 12% difference in LPSA areas reported. 2: The, draft LPSA MEA: is not:complete...Sections missing represent- of the' most unportant _areas , requiring .public review and input:, The :document as submitted is more appropriately described as a preliminary or administrative draft MEA since the public cannot review or appropriately comment on an incomplete document. a. Critical appendices are missing, including the complete traffic report with conclusions and recommendations, as submitted by Omni -Means. Without the full report there is no way to assess the promulgation of needed improvements, etc., from the original traffic engineers through PMC's treatment of that report. b. Because the report as presented does not allow for a complete assessment of the conditions on which recommendations were made, the LPSA MEA should be redistributed as a draft for public review when a complete draft is available for review. Growth Projections and Growth Modeling The LPSA MEA states that growth projections are partially based in applications for entitlement or development that were received by Butte County by summer of 2007. a. This data is over 2 years old. Pg. 2.1-1 states this study is based upon the "most up to date information available." This is not true. b. 'The level of development proposed in summer 2007 does not reflect the subsequent recession and decline in housing demand and small business insolvency that has severely curtailed development in Butte County and throughout the Nation. c. Not all of the 7 applicants identified in this report still have active projects due to liens, property seizures, and changing economic conditions. d. This basis for modeling growth is not realistic and does not reflect current conditions. 2. Average Annual Growth Rate estimates are unrealistically high. a. The LPSA MEA assumes an AAG of 3.7%, although: b. Historic AAG for Butte County is 2.5%; c. Oroville draft General Plan establishes 'a potential of 2.93%; d. BCAG projects an AAG of 3.16%; e. The City of Oroville (based on TAZ's) projects a max of 3.2%; f. 3.7% can only be achieved if one assumes complete buildout of all projects (see comment Lc for some problems with this) g. Unrealistic AAG's lead to unrealistic projections, including projections for Total Dwelling Units (pg. 2.1-4) by 2030. This, in turn, creates artificially high traffic volume projections, etc. 3. Buildout of 2,200,000 sq ft of Industrial space is assumed. a. No applications for industrial uses in this area currently exist. b. Vacant industrial space for Oroville is estimated at 75% (Oroville MSR), the highest in the County. c. The preferred LUA for the LPSA identified the designation of Industrial as a "place holder" for BC GP discussion purposes and does not actually represent a need or market for industrial lands in the area. Recommended Transportation Infrastructure Improvements The methodology employed to identify the various year 2030 transportation facility improvement needs is problematic is several respects. a. Tables 2.8-8 and 2.8-9 list the year 2030 intersection and roadway levels of service (LOS), identifying whether intersections meet MUTCD satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants, and identifying roadway improvements necessary to improve the LOS. The cost of improving intersections and roadways that meet MUTCD satisfaction for warrants or are projected to exceed acceptable LOS standards is provided in Table Al.1 and A1.2, and is summarized and totaled below in Table 1 of this document. b. -It was noted that the segment of Oro Dam Boulevard proposed for widening is outside of the Las Plumas MEA area, as is the Wyandotte Avenue Lincoln Boulevard intersection proposed for signalization. Table 1. Year 2030 Roads and Intersection that will fall below a Level of Service'D' and meet the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants (MUTCD) for peak volume following 2030 Buildout of the Las Plumas MEA area. Facility Name Type Year 2030 From ested v Cost LOS Intersection ImproTO eement Wyandotte Ave/Lincoln Blvd Intersection F n/a ba Roundabout $500,000 Lincoln Blv. Bagget Marysville/ M ers St. Intersection F rt/a Ma Roundabout $500,000 Lincoln Blv. ! Walmer Rd. Intersection F n/a Ma Roundabout $500,000 Monte Vista / Lincoln Blv. Intersection F n/a n/a Roundabout $500,000 O hir / Ba ett / Palmerrno Rd. Intersection F n/a n/a Roundabout $500,000 F Bagget O hir Rd. Road Palermo Lincoln Bld. 4 -lane $15,259,178 F Oro Dam L. Wyandotte Olive Highway Road Blvd. Ave. 4 -lane $4,520,000 Oro Dam Blv. Road F SR 70 Olive Highway 6 -lane $10,280,000 Cost $32,559,178 2. Section 2.8.4 of the draft Las Plumas MEA states that `intersection and roadway improvement needs within the Study Area have been identified...' based on section 2.8.3 which is summarized above in Table 1. However, additional improvements are proposed for intersections and road segments which do not. meet the signal warrant criteria of the MUTCD, and which are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS in the year 2030. The cost of these improvements (several of which are outside of the Study Area) is estimated to be $198,710,000 according to table A1.2 of Appendix A. The MEA should address the rationale for proposing improvements which appear to be unnecessary to meet the requirements of the Butte County General Plan. 3. The following proposed roadway improvements do not appear to mitigate any clearly defined traffic impact, such as a reduction in LOS below the threshold defined by the Butte County General Plan. These potentially unnecessary improvements are presented on page on pages 35, 38, and 39 of section 2.8 and are expected to cost around $107,130,000 (excluding associated intersection improvements). The following section lists each roadway proposed for improvement, discusses whether the LOS in the year 2030 is projected to be adequate, and lists the total improvement cost from Appendix A of the draft. ,MEA: a. Lincoln Boulevard i. This roadway is expected to meet the target LOS of D in the year 2030. However, $25,740,000 worth of improvements is proposed . --for-Lincoln Boulevard, and summarized in Table Al. 1. b. Ophir Road i. The segment of Ophir road between SR 70 and Baggett Palermo Road is expected to meet the target LOS of D in the year 2030. However, $22,120,000 worth of improvements is proposed for this segment, and summarized in Table Al. 1. c. 'Lower Wyandotte Road i. This roadway is expected to exceed the target LOS with a LOS of C in the year 2030. However, $22,670,000 worth of improvements is proposed for Lower Wyandotte Road, and summarized in Table A1.2. d. V-1 Road i. This roadway is expected to exceed the target LOS with a LOS of B in the year 2030. However, $10,610,000 worth of improvements is proposed for V-1 Road, and summarized in Table A1.2. e. V-6 Road i. This roadway is expected to exceed the target LOS with a LOS of C in the year 2030. However, $10,590,000 worth of improvements is proposed for V-6 Road, and summarized in Table A1.2. f. Las Plumas Avenue i. This roadway is expected to exceed the target LOS with a LOS of C in the year 2030. ,However, $7,980,000 worth of improvements is proposed for Las Plumas Avenue, and summarized in Table A1.2. g. Myers Street i. This roadway is expected to meet the target LOS of D in the year 2030. However, $7,420,000 worth of improvements is proposed for Myers Street, and summarized in Table A1.2. Numerous intersection improvements are also proposed, many of which are projected to perform at levels of service equal to or greater than an LOS of D. To provide greater clarity, the LPSA MEA should clearly differentiate between transportation infiastructure improvements which will be necessary to accommodate the growth expected to year 2030 and the improvements which would be desirable, but not required to mitigate for projected growth. Although we are pleased with the concept'of coordinated planning in the Las Plumas area, we share -serious -concerns with Mr: Ashlock regarding the LPSA MEA in its current- form. urrentform. These concerns start with high growth assumptions based upon old data, which result in high growth projections, and produce questionable conclusions regarding needed improvements. In addition, many of the conclusions reached in this document are not supported by the data included in this document, such as recommended improvements to . many roadways and intersections that are projected to perform within an acceptable LOS for decades to come. The rationale for these recommendations is not apparent. At this point we feel this document does not provide a sound basis for development of reasonable impact fee estimates or realistic growth expectations. It is important to produce a final LPSA MEA that supports community development and provides a realistic, workable foundation for future planning efforts in the Las Plumas area. At a time when local and State governments are striving to restart their economies, this document does not serve to fairly guide growth, but rather prevents good, needed projects that could further well.planned development and economic improvement within the County. We recommend this MEA be revisited and the above -stated issues addressed prior to release for public review. Yom Bec , Ph.D: P cipal Analyst Eco -Analysts f R STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 703 B STREET P. O. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-0911 PHONE (530) 741-4025 FAX (530) 741-4825 TTY (530) 741-4509 h SII COUN 2009 SL August 28, 2009 1-0 032009BUT0023 SR162/SR70 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Ms. Claudia Stuart Butte County 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Ms. Stuart, Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) for the Las Plumas Study Area, encompassing approximately 2,007 acres southeast and adjacent to the City of Oroville in Butte County. Caltrans has the following initial comments: The State Route (SR) 70 Transportation Concept Report states a future interchange is planned for Ophir Road and Georgia Pacific Way. Currently, a majority of the traffic from . the Las Plumas Study Area headed south will be required to use the Ophir Road interchange. An alternative should be considered to connect Georgia Pacific Way to Lincoln Road (near the intersection of Las Plumas Avenue). This type of parallel connection will divide traffic between the two routes; provide route reliability, additional capacity, and an increased level of service. The development of a fee program is mentioned in the MEA, stating that cooperation will be required between the County, the City of Oroville and Caltrans to achieve an economically viable program. Caltrans is eager to participate in such a study to support the creation of a regional fee structure in the greater Oroville area to address regional State Highway. issues. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 't .: `W Ms. Claudia Stuart August 28, 2009 Page 2 of 2 If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Rupinder Jawanda, Butte County IGR Coordinator, at (530) 740-4989 or e-mail at rupinderjawanda@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, SUKHVINDER (SUE) TAKHA, Chief Office of Transportation Planning — North "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Page 1 of 2 Stuart, Claudia From:. Stuart, Claudia Sent: Friday, August 07; 2009 12:30 PM To: 'Paul MILLER'; Scott Friend; Crump, Mike; Lundbom, Paul; Calarco, Pete Cc: Jolliffe, Stacey; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Las Plumas Meeting Notes All, Thank you for a productive meeting this morning. Here are my summary notes: Modifications to be Included in the Public Review Draft: X. Lincoln Blvd. Omni -Means will change this recommended improvement to 4 lanes to Ophir rather than 2 lanes which would just meet LOS targets. Omni -Means will clarify in the text that this higher recommended level of Iimprovement is based on operational needs etc, as identified by PW. d. . 2. Ophir from Lincoln -70 This recommendation is acceptable as shown. 3. Structural Sections shown in the document These are approved by PW. 4. Recommendations for Roundabouts Omni -Means will add a section regarding the impacts of widening Oro Dam to a 6 -lane facility, and will discuss options for improving Oro Dam. OM will also include a general description of why roundabouts are recommended. 5. Olive Highway from Oro Dam to Lower Wyandotte The County would like to bring this up to a 4 -lane facility; Omni -Means will include this change. 6. R15 Monte Vista Ave (Lincoln to Lower Wyandotte) No change to the analysis. 7. R21 , Omni -Means will change this to an expressway. 8. 'Labelling of roadway segments and intersections Omni -Means will modify the tables in the chapter to make the numbering of individual segments and intersections consistent throughout the chapter (e.g., 7A, 7B). 9. R12 Omni -Means will correct this location shown on the figure. 10. 120 This will be changed to either a signal or a roundabout. 11. 125 —Roundabout at KusellOphir This recommendation will be left as is, with the expectation that it may change in response to public comment during the public review phase. 8/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 12: Ophir/Lincoln The analysis will remain as is. 12. Georgia-Pacific Bypass This portion of the analysis will be left as is. 13. Discrepancies between existing conditions for Oro Dam and Lincoln (see previous County comments), between the Butte County General Plan 2030 and MEA documents. Omni -Means will contact Jeff Clark of Fehr and Peers to resolve these discrepancies so that the 2 documents are consistent. Other Coordination Items 14, Remaining Meetings and Presentations PMC/Omni-Means have reviewed the project contract, and. identified 2 remaining public meetings/presentations under the contract. One of these will be the August 19th stakeholder meeting. The meeting has been confirmed for August 19th, 10 am -noon. Staff/consultants will coordinate presentations before the meeting. . 15: Delivery of MEA PMC will deliver the Public Draft MEA on August 11th or early August 12, to allow time for posting on the website by COB August 12th. Claudia Stuart -Principal Planner - Special Projects - Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County.Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 530-538-7604 Fax 530-538-7785 . Email: cstuartDbuttecounty.net 8/12/2009 Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 , (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.net/dds www.buttegeneralplan.net ADMINISTRATION " BUILDING " PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Friend, PMC FROM: Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Las Plumas Draft Master Environmental Assessment DATE: July 2, 2009 Dear Scott, The Department of Development Services would like to thank PMC, Omni -Means, and RAR for submitting the Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on June 5, 2009. As identified in Scope of Work for the project, the intent to the MEA is to: ✓ Incorporate all identified issues concerning the Study Area; ✓ Review all existing technical studies for technical adequacy and completeness; ✓ Identify data gaps and information needed to fully assess environmental conditions; ✓ Identify needed facilities, including the feasibility and necessity for "temporary facilities; the need for equipment purchases; and the timing of potential new facilities. The subsequent scoped task (Section 4: Fiscal Analysis and Impact Fee Assessment) is intended to provide planning -level cost estimates for the needed facilities and services, for both the built -out condition and the 2030 planning horizon. This.section of the document will be prepared and submitted in the next phase of the project, and is not further addressed in these comments. Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 1 of 13 Verbal comments and questions regarding Sections 2.5 (Storm Drainage), 2.6 (Sanitary Sewer), 2.7 (Domestic and Fire -Protection Water) and 2.8 (Traffic and Circulation) were discussed with PMC; .Omni -Means, and RAR by the Department of Development Services and Public Works on June 15, 2009. The comments below are intended to augment comments provided to PMC, Omni -Means and RAR at that meeting. -An additional meeting was held with PW and DDS staff, Omni -Means, and City -of Oroville. staff on June 23, •2009 to discuss appropriate standards for improvements to specific roadways and intersections in the studies. -A summary of agreements from that meeting is attached. The. following comments complete the County's feedback regarding the Admin. DMEA: Sources of some comments are attributed in parentheses: GENERAL COMMENTS Title Please re -title the document consistent with the Scope of Work: Las Pumas Master Environmental Assessment, Infrastructure Assessment, and Fiscal Impact Assessment. Fundinq for Services Overall there is inadequate discussion regarding how services (operations) will be paid for, since the tax base most likely won't be sufficient to support additional personnel/services (e.g., fire, law enforcement, road maintenance/repair) (DCAO). This topic should be addressed' in the Introduction (see below), with follow-through as appropriate elsewhere in the document. Fi ures Please correct printout orientation of the full-page figures in the digital file. Adequacy of Specific Sections in Relation to the Scope of Work ✓ Section 1 Introduction - As noted above, the provision of services (as opposed to infrastructure) is not clearly addressed. Section 1.03 Type of Document should clarify that the MEA/FIA is.not just a compilation of existing data, but also 1) an assessment of infrastructure and services needed to support the proposed projects; and 2) an assessment of the fiscal impact resulting from the identified needs, and an interim fee study. ✓ Section 2.2 Police and Fire Protection - As stated in the Scope of Work, this analysis should specify'the additional facilities or equipment, potentially including a new fire station, that are needed so that the Fiscal Impact Analysis can estimate resultant costs. Please complete and specify this information per the Scope. ✓ Section 2.4 Schools — Please clarify whether existing and planned schools are adequate to serve the proposed development. ✓ Section 2.5 Storm Drainage - No storm drainage fee study exists at this time. However, the outdatedWyman Ravine Study referred to in this section is not adequate for current planning needs. Please clarify per Public Works verbal comments on 6/15/09 that the County's on-site storm water detention/retention Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 2 of 13 V standards are expected to address most storm water mitigation needs. The County further requests RAR to provide a clear recommendation in the document regarding the area that should be included in an updated drainage study sufficient to address any additional infrastructure needs in relation to upstream or downstream drainage. ✓ Section 2.8 Traffic and Circulation - o Refine cross sections using the agreements on standards reached during the June 23, 2009 discussion with the City of Oroville and County PW -Department. o Clarify the proportion of each improvement that the proposed projects need to fund. ✓ Section 3.0 Potential Environmental Constraints - o The Scope of Work requires that this section "will include information obtained from the State of California LUST database, the Cortese list, and other existing database sources." This hazardous waste site information is missing from the analysis. Please revise to include this information. o The following environmental issues may pose potential constraints to development in the area, and should be included in the analysis: Fire hazard (wildland fire) ■ Agricultural lands. o The Scope of Work requires that this section "include discussion of . ,,general mitigation or correction measures that could or may be ,implemented in subsequent evaluations to address the constraints identified in the MEA." Identified constraints consist of biological _::resources including oaks; cultural resources; flood and seismic hazards; {,-and dam inundation. Please include a discussion of general mitigation or ..correction measures for these constraints per the Scope of Work. ✓ 'All Sections: Proportionality — In the conclusion of each relevant section, please specify the proportion of the identified improvements that should be funded by the proposed projects. ✓ All .Sections: Citation of Land Use Projections — Where a numerical estimate -from Section 2.1 (Land Use Projections), is used in the analysis, please cite the ,source table or page. Study Area Acreage Discrepancies Pages 1.0-1, 2.0-1, 2.5-1, 2.6-1, 2.7-1: Study area is described as 2,246 acres. Page 2.1-,6 and 2.1-4 describe it as 2,007 acres. Please resolve this internal inconsistency. DETAILED COMMENTS Section 1.0 — Introduction Section 1.03 Type of Document - As noted above; this section should clarify that_the MEA/FIA is not just a compilation of existing data, but also 1) an assessment of infrastructure'and services needed to Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 3 of 13 support the proposed projects; and 2) an assessment of the fiscal impact resulting from the identified needs, and an interim fee study. Section 2.1 - Land Use Proiections Figure 2.1-3 Shapefile — The County requests the shapefile for Figure 2.1-3. Please deliver the file to Principal Planner Stacey Jolliffe. Page 2.1-1 Section 2.1.1 Assumptions Under "Policy", first line, replace "existing (2008)" with "proposed... (Oroville 2030 General Plan)". Page 2.1-2 Growth Scenarios — Oroville GP Average Annual Growth (last line) Revise the 4.6 percent to 3.16 percent, consistent with the City's clarification of April 2009: It is unlikely that full buildout of this General Plan will occur over the next 25 years. The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) is currently projecting that the City of Oroville will grow at a compounded average rate of 44 3.16 percent a year over the next 25 years. The City utilized the BCAG growth projections for the City of Oroville as the basis for projecting growth in the greater Oroville area through the 25 -year horizon of the General Plan. Based on the BCAG City's growth projections, it is likely that approximately 13,800 units will be added to the area within the city limits and SOI. The expected 25 -year buildout, as shown in Table LU -5, would be an additional 13,800 dwelling units, for a total of 27,600 homes within the SOI. This corresponds to an annual growth rate of 2.93 percent. The City's projected growth rate is lower than BCAG's because the City's rate accounts for development within both the city limit and the SOI, including recently approved development in the SOI. Compared to BCAG's growth projections, the City projects a lower rate of development but considers a larger area. (Memo on the FEIR, http://www.cityoforoville.or-q/index.aspx?page=302). Page 2.1-2 Growth Scenarios Confirm that all growth rates noted in this section are expressed in compounded average annual growth rates, consistent with the BCAG correction noted above. Page 2.1-3 Pending Projects Growth It would be helpful to clarify that the Las Plumas area is one of the areas within the SOI targeted for growth under both the City's and the County's updated General Plans; thus it has a higher projected growth rate than the overall SOI. Page 2.1-6, ✓ 1St paragraph —The Study Area is mostly within the City's proposed SOI under the final Oroville 2030 General Plan. ✓ 4 t paragraph - Change "... more that 5 acres in size..." to "... more than... Page 2.1-9, second paragraph The last sentence is a fragment. Delete "although". Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 4 of 13 I Section 2.2 - Police and Fire Protection Page 2.2-1 Butte County Sheriff Change "BOC (Board of Corrections)" to "CSA (Correction Standards Authority)". (BCSO) Page 2.2-5 Oroville Police Department ✓ Regarding the discussion of funding for additional service provision provided by a combination of development fees and increases in the City's General Fund resulting from the expanding tax base: how will services be paid for, as they cannot be paid for with development fees? (Only infrastructure and possibly equipment can be paid for with development fees.) Further, residential development does not pay for itself through the increased tax base (DCAO). ✓ Regarding the Public Review Draft MSR: The statement that "One contributing factor to the higher crime rate appears to be the large unincorporated population adjacent to the City which does not have similar officer coverage" is in the Draft MSR for the City of Oroville. However, the County does not agree with the statement, nor is any substantive evidence presented to support it. Please delete this assertion from the DMEA (DCAO). Page 2.2-6 Public Defender Please clarify here that the Public Defender Services are funded by the County's General Fund. There are no state or federal funds that pay for that service (DCAO). Page 2:2-7 Butte County Jail Please clarify that the jail houses people taken into custody by all law enforcement agencies within Butte County, not just BCSO and CHP. The cities -and Town also send their arrestees to the County jail (DCAO). . Page 2.2-7 and Table 2.2.1-1 Potential Need for Law Enforcement Services ✓ Please correct spelling of sheriff here and throughout document, including tables. ✓ Does the need for additional officers imply a need for additional facilities or `equipment to house these officers or provide timely services to the Study Area? If so, please specify facilities needed. Page 2.2-8 — 2.2-9 EI Medio Fire Protection District Please confirm the statement that there are 11 burned -out residences in the EI Medio Fire District, and whether these pose a public health and safety hazard, before completing the public draft. Is further information available regarding these properties? (DCAO). Pages 2.2-9 — 2.2-11 and Table 2.2.2-1 EI Medio Apparatus/Vehicles The inventory of fire engines at EI Medio appears to be based on an outdated study. However, the information does not have a major impact on the report. Please confirm_ this information if feasible before completing the public draft (CAL FIRE/BCF). Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 5 of 13 t Page 2.2-14 Response Time Please delete the sentence "The Butte County General Plan does not identify an average response time goal for fire services throughout the County", and replace it with the response time goals that have been adopted by the County and that are included in the Administrative Draft Butte County General Plan 2030 as Policies PUB -P2.1 -P2.3 (attached). Do these policies imply different infrastructure or service needs that should be specified in this section? Page 2.2-15 ✓ Butte LAFCO MSR — 3`d line: Change are to were. ✓ Butte County Fire Department - Confirm the number of County stations. The County recently counted these and found 26, not 31, County stations (DCAO). Page 2.2-16 Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Agreements Please correct - the Fire Emergency Command Center (ECC) also provides dispatching for Biggs and Gridley (DCAO). Page 2.2-17 Automatic Aid Agreements Please clarify - the automatic aid agreement referenced for Oroville is between Oroville, EI Medio, and BCFD. CAL FIRE is not a signatory on that agreement. (DCAO). Page 2.2-17 Oroville Fire Department — Service Standards The Public Facilities and Services Element of the updated Oroville General Plan 2030 (http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=302) contains updated policies regarding fire response, including: P2.1 Maintain and enhance strategies to ensure adequate first response travel time of three to five minutes to incidents and travel time of ten minutes or less for additional resources within 90 percent of the call volume. Please revise the analysis if needed to address the updated information. Page 2.2-21 Uniform Fire Code Please clarify that, although incorporated jurisdictions within Butte County have adopted the Uniform Fire Code, Butte County has not (DCAO). Page 2.2-22 Potential Need for Additional Fire Protection Services ✓ As stated in the Scope of Work, this analysis should specify the additional facilities or equipment, potentially including a new fire station, needed so that the Fiscal Impact Analysis can estimate resultant costs. Please complete and specify this information per the Scope. ✓ PMC previously recommended to the County preparation of a Development Impact Fee Study for the EI Medio Fire Protection District as part of this project. However, this was before El Medio District voters approved an increase to their assessment fee. Where will PMC address whether a development impact fee study is still needed: in this Section 2.2, or in Section 4 (Fiscal Analysis and Impact Fee Assessment)? Section 2.3 Parks and Recreation Page 2.3-9 Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 6 of 13 ✓ Developer Impact Fees The discussion below regarding Development Impact Fees for FRRPD asserts that the City of Oroville collects the impact fees collected for building in the unincorporated area. Please verify this statement before including it in the public draft: FRRPD estimates that it will receive approximately $1, 000 for each new home built in the unincorporated areas. This is due to the fact that the City of Oroville collects the fees, divides the fees into categories for regional parks and neighborhood parks and retains sole control of what projects FRRPD can build using fees. (DCAO). ✓ Figure 2.3-2 Bikeway Plan Both the County's 'and the City's bicycle plan maps should be referenced in this section. The City's 2009 Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan is posted at http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=302. Table 2.3-5 Pending Projects Open Space/Parkland ✓ Does the open space proposed by the projects and as shown in this table, meet FRRPD criteria for parkland types (i.e., as parks, linear parks, or trails?) ✓ The Oroville 2030 General Plan proposes the.following parks and open space in the study area: Southside -Las Plumas community park; South of Monte Vista ..Ave. Vicinity neighborhood park; Southwest Side Wyman Ravine Open .Space (Figure OPS -1, Memo on the FEIR, posted at http://www.cityofor6ville.oLg/index.aspx?page=302.). Please incorporate this information into the analysis as appropriate. Section 2.4 Schools -Table 2.4-11 Capacity and Enrollment The Scope of Work states: "PMC will identify what improvements will be needed based upon input and service standards in the Oroville Public School District." The table appears to show existing deficiencies (Helen Wilcox Elementary School has 101 students over capacity) as well as the need to provide facilities for the additional students generated by proposed development in the Las Plumas area. However, the section does not offer any conclusions regarding what facilities are needed. Please clarify in. the text whether.existing and planned schools are adequate to serve the proposed development. Section 2.5 Storm Drainage Scope of Work No storm drainage fee study exists at this time. However, the outdated Wyman Ravine Study referred to in this section is not adequate for current planning needs. Please clarify per Public Works comments on 6/15/09 that the County's on-site storm water detention/retention standards are expected to address most storm water mitigation needs. The County further requests RAR to provide a clear recommendation in the document regarding the area to be included in an updated drainage study sufficient to Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 7 of 13 address any additional infrastructure needs in relation to upstream or downstream drainage. Page 2.5-1 Existing Storm Drainage Conditions ✓ 1St paragraph: Please correct — the Study Area is mostly within the City's proposed SOI. 4th par, last sentence - Change final word "east" to "west" (PW). ✓ 3r' paragraph —Figure 2.5-1 is missing from the document. Page 2.5-2 Existing Infrastructure. Deficiencies The MEA is intended to determine the adequacy of existing information regarding infrastructure. Please clarify that the 1981 Wyman Ravine Watershed Drainage Study is inadequate to determine current storm drainage facility deficiencies (see preceding comment). Page 2.5-3 Section 2.5.4 Storm Drainage Facility Funding Change "activities" at end of second sentence to "of storm drainage facilities" (PW). Section 2.6 Sanitary Sewer Figure 2.6-1 LOAPUD District Boundary and SOI Can this figure be made more.legible? Page 2.6-4 Existing Collection System Capacity Please specify the EDU conversion ratio noted in the first sentence. Table 2.6-4 SC -OR Fee Schedule Please revise header of right-hand column (i.e., $4,183 is not a monthly service rate). Table 2.6-6 Existing Wastewater Flows Please clarify in a footnote that, although this tabulates existing wastewater flows, it groups these according to future land use designations under Butte County General Plan 2030. Section 2.7 Domestic and Fire Protection Water Section 2.7.3 Required Improvements to Serve the Study Area ✓ Please clarify that additional capacity may be needed on a project -by -project basis. ✓ Please confirm whether there would be a capital component to the steel pipe replacement program. Section 2.8 Traffic and Circulation Comments from Departments of Public Works and Planning (6-15-09) ✓ Refine cross sections using standards as agreed to in 6/23/09 meeting with City of Oroville. Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 8 of 13 IV ✓ Clarify proportion of each improvement that proposed projects need to fund. ✓ For Roadway 7A, confirm improvement standard that will accommodate the maximum traffic volume. ✓ Re -check volume numbers on Oro Dam Boulevard. ✓ Confirm Roadway LOS targets and thresholds — see attached. ✓ Georgia-Pacific Bypass — see attached. ✓ Clarify in text the standards for improvement for roundabouts vs. traffic signals. ✓ Correct Figures 2.8-1, -10, -16, -17, -19, -20, -22 to match text. ✓ Table 2.8-11 =.Correct intersection at Ophir/Lincoln Blvd; also intersection 24 at Baggett-Marysville Road where there is no track crossing; also roundabout at Monte Vista where County plans to put in a 4 -way stop and signal. ✓ Monte Vista and/or Las Plumas may be closed to accommodate changes to the Las Plumas High School site. This should be confirmed with the school district during public review. Table 2.8-2 Butte County — ADT Level -Of -Service (LOS) thresholds for Roadways Consistent with our agreement with PW and the City of Oroville on June 23, 2009, the DMEA will use peak -hour rather than ADT measurement. Please see attachment regarding LOS thresholds, and revise to include the corrected information. Bicycle Facilities Please ensure that the roadway improvements analysis is coordinated with planned bicycle facility improvements in the area. The County's Bike Master Plan for the area is addressed in Section 2.3 (Parks and Recreation) of the MEA. The City's 2009 Draft --Bicycle Transportation Plan is posted at http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=302, and should be consulted to ensure connectivity with bicycle facilities in the incorporated area. Pages 2.8-3 and 2.8-4 Please title and number the tables on these pages. Page 2.8-10 Target Thresholds and Table 2.8-1 ✓ Clarify the source of each LOS threshold and the source of the standard for setting -the threshold. Sample text: "Intersections within the City of Oroville incorporated area were evaluated using adopted policies for acceptable LOS levels in the adopted City of Oroville 2030 General Plan. This analysis uses a target LOS of D in the Sphere of Influence, consistent with the City of Oroville General Plan 2030, the current Butte County General Plan, and the draft Butte County General Plan 2030. California Department of Transportation threshold standards were utilized for state improvements." Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 9 of 13 ✓ Clarify that traffic volume thresholds for defining all levels of service were drawn from the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual and are consistent with draft Butte County General Plan 2030. Page 2.8-11 Please repaginate this section —there are two pages numbered 2.8-11 Page 2.8-13, first line after table 2.8-5 "...the following roadway segment is currently projected to..." Page 2.8-18 Land Use Adjustments Please clarify the following sentence: "Based on a review of the land uses within the TAZ's, it was found that existing units within the TAZ's were lower than 1,688." Figures 2.8-6 and 2.8-10 The yellow text is difficult to read in printout — can these be made more legible? Table 2.8-8 Year 2030 Conditions: Intersection LOS Please clarify in the text whether this table represents conditions before or after improvements. Figure — Road Improvement Sections Please title and number this figure per our discussion on 6/15. Also revise per agreement reached during the June 23, 2009 meeting with Public Works and City of Oroville staff. Section 3.0 Potential Environmental Constraints Scope of Work ✓ The Scope requires that this section "will include information obtained from the State of California LUST database, the Cortese list, and other existing database sources." This hazardous waste site information is missing from the analysis. Please revise to include this information. ✓ The following environmental issues may pose potential constraints to development in the area, and should be included in the analysis: o Fire hazard (wildland fire) o Agricultural lands. ✓ The Scope of Work requires that this section "include discussion of general mitigation or correction measures that could or may be implemented in subsequent evaluations to address the constraints identified in the MEA." Identified constraints include biological resources including oaks; cultural resources; flood and seismic hazards; and dam inundation. Other potential constraints are identified in the previous comment. Please include a discussion of general mitigation or correction measures for these constraints per the Scope of Work. Page 3.0-1 Biological Resources, 3'd paragraph Please revise as ..."and predominately consists of grasslands..." Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 10 of 13 Section 5.0 Report Preparation ✓ Please correct my title to "Principal Planner/ LPMEA Project Manager". ✓ Correct Stacey Jolliffe's title to "Principal Planner". Add "Chuck Thistlethwaite... Planning Manager'. Appendix C The yellow text in these figures is not legible. Please improve their legibility. Attachments: ✓ Memo to Omni -Means: Final Summary Notes from June 23, 2009 Meeting with City of Oroville ✓ Adopted -Butte County Fire Response Time Goals (as listed in Admin Draft Butte County General Plan 2030 Policies PUB -P2.1 -P2.3) r - y , t Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 11 of 13 Memo to Omni -Means: Final Summary Notes from June 23, 2009 Meeting with City of Oroville ✓ Roadway Cross -Section Standards - Stu Edell and Charles Rutter of Omni -Means have exchanged the necessary information regarding the County standards. In addition to this information, I have forwarded the draft roadway improvement standards provided by the City, which should be used with the following updated exception: o The minimum structural section for the four lane surface street should be 6" (not 5") AC over 14" AB and 3" AC over 12" AB for all the other streets. The information you have now represents full agreement by all parties. ✓ Roadway LOS Thresholds — Both acceptable LOS thresholds, and the use of peak -hour values were confirmed at the meeting. LOS targets will be based on policies in both Butte County General Plan 2030 and the recently adopted Oroville General Plan 2030. 1 have previously forwarded the County's draft policy regarding LOS, which states: CIR-P6.1 The level of service for County -maintained roads within the unincorporated areas of the County but outside municipalities' spheres of influence (SOls) shall be level of service (LOS) C or better. Within a municipality's SOI, the level of service shall meet the municipality's level of service policy (PolicyAlts 26.a). The City's Traffic and Circulation policies include the following: P2.1 Maintain a minimum operating standard of LOS D as defined in the most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual or subsequent revisions for all arterial, collector streets and intersections, except the following facilities where a LOS E will be acceptable. LOS E operations will be considered acceptable for intersection and roadway segment operations along Oroville Dam Boulevard between Highway 70 and Olive Highway. (Memo to the FEIR, http://www.cityoforoville.o[g/index.aspx?page=302). We also agreed that "conventional" traffic volume thresholds, rather than the City's thresholds, will be used in the analysis of LOS levels. Oro Dam Bypass Alignment— The conceptual Oro Dam Boulevard bypass is shown in Figure CIR-10 of the City's General Plan, (Memo to the FEIR, see link above). The re/evant.text from the City's memo states: The potential future South Oroville bypass is being carried forward from the City of Oroville's 1995 General Plan. It may be deemed necessary to build this bypass in order to alleviate congestion on Highway 70, Oro Dam Boulevard, Olive Highway and Ophir Road. However, the traffic analysis of the horizon buildout conditions under the 2030 General Plan indicates that this bypass likely will not be necessary before 2030. At the meeting we discussed this conceptual alignment and its potential effects on the analysis. You proposed to complete the analysis without the bypass and indicated that it appears from your work thus far that Oro Dam Boulevard can be improved to meet LOS targets without the bypass. However, should the analysis show Oro Dam falling below its target LOS of E, a change in scope and budget would be needed to re -run the analysis using the bypass. The County hereby authorizes this approach. The DMEA should indicate that the City's FEIR acknowledges that its planned fee program may be insufficient to pay for planned improvements (Oroville 2030 FEIR, p. 2-6). ✓ Future Conditions Horizon Year — Our Planning staff believes that the MEA model created by Fehr and Peers represents Year 2030. However, specific traffic engineering Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 12 of 13 n D expertise may be needed to clarify this point. If you need confirmation on this point from the County and/or Fehr and Peers I am available to assist. Oroville Gold Project We also discussed the Oroville Gold proposal during the meeting. You indicated that you did not expect this project to change the cost implications of the infrastructure analysis. You also indicated that incorporating this proposed project into the model would require a budget augmentation. The County hereby authorizes the traffic analysis without incorporating the Oroville Gold project. H would be helpful to identify in the text the number of acres, residential units/other uses under Butte County. General Plan 2030 that would be altered by this proposed project. Administrative Draft Butte County General Plan 2030 - Circulation Element I previously forwarded the Circulation Element, as well as a scan of Appendix B — Existing and Future Levels of LOS. The policies in these documents should be consistent with what we have discussed to date. Please note that these documents are for Omni - Means' use in the MEA only, and may not be further distributed. Draft Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment Butte County Consolidated Comments July 2, 2009 Page 13 of 13 /�2�-� September 24, 2009 Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner BUTTE COUNTY 7 County Center.Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: LAS PLUMAS MEA - BUDGET CLARIFICATION MEMO (INVOICES ,#28691, 28949 AND 29120) Dear Claudia: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up with you per your request to clarify PMC's assignment of hours to Task 2.0 — Prepare Draft MEA on Invoices #28949, #28691 and #29120. 1) PMC Invoice #28691 covering the period" between 4/25/09 to 5/29/09, invoiced Task 2.0, - Prepare / Draft MEA in the amount of $5,840. Upon review of that Task budget, the corrected amount should have been $5,550 and thus extinguishing the budget for Task 2.0. Invoice #28691 should have billed Task 6.0 — Budget Augment $290 dollars for work completed during the preparation of. the " administrative draft MEA document. The effect of these changes does not alter the total invoice amount. rather shifts labor allocation between tasks 2.0 and 6.0 in the amount of $290. 2) PMC invoice #28949 covering the period between 5/30/09 and 6/26/09 erroneously charged Task 2.0. for work completed as part of'Tasks 3.0 and 6.0. Specifically, the amount of $1,290.00 was placed within Task 2.0 and should have been allocated as follows: Task 3.0: $480.00 Task 6.0: $810.00 / 3) PMC invoice -#29120 covering the period between 6/27/09 and 07/31/09 erroneously charged Task J 2.0 for work completed as part of. Tasks 4.0 and 6.0. 'Specifically, the amount of $1,710.00 was charged to Task 2.0 and should have been allocated as follows: Task;4.0: $ 240.00 Task 6.0: $1,470.00 As with the modification noted in item I above (Invoice #28691), the changes to Invoices #28949. and #291.20 to do not alter the total invoice amount rather shifts labor allocation from Task 2.Q to Tasks 3,.0 , 4.0 and 6.0. To make sure that this error is not repeated in the future, we have modified our project, billing software to lock -out billing to Task 2.0. 140 Independence Cir, Suite C • Chico, CA 95973 • P: (530) 894-3469 • F: (530) 894-6459 Page 1 of 1 From: Stuart, Claudia Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:20 PM To: DeBrunner, Deborah Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Lewellen, Diane Subject: PMC Invoicing Deborah, I have reviewed the PMC invoices below in light of the correction memo from Scott Friend dated 9/24/09, and am approving for payment all of them: Invoice 28949 (May 30 -June 26, 2009) Invoice 29120 (June 27 — July 31, 2009) Invoice 29438 (August 1 — August 28, 2009) Would you please let me know when these go up the hill for payment? Thank you! [Chuck — as an update, this leaves about $50K for the fiscal impact analysis, and another $18K for other expenses.] Claudia file://G:\PROJECTS - APPLICATIONS\CEQA\LAS PLUMAS MEA CEQA 07-0001\Fu... 9/29/2009 Labor Code 03 Professional Personnel Senior Planner Friend, Scott Friend, Scott Friend, Scott Friend, Scott Assistant Planner Anderson,- Nathan Anderson, Nathan Total this'Labor Code $1,710.00 Revise Draft MEA/ Prepare Final MEA Hours r` Amount 7/9/09 .50 110.00 55.00 ' 1.00 110.00 BUTTE 7/23/09 .50 11-0.00 55.00 COUNTY PMC INVOICE 165.00 7/24/09 AUG f 2 2009 60.00 2729 Prospect Park Drive 7/29/09 DEVc� a,hfe'i411W 1. 60.00 Suite 220 SERVICES Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 `10 Charles Thistlethwaite August 10, 2009 County of Butte o t-0 Invoice No 29120 .7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 r , " !/� Project Manager Scott Friend Project . 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Professional Services from Ju66:27-2009to July 31 ,2009 Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 02 Preparation of Draft MEA Professional Personnel Hours Rate . Amount Assistant Planner Granville, Dustin 7/20/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth' 7/17/09 4.00 60.00. 240.00 Myers, Seth 7/20/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth 7/21/09 8.00 y 60.00 .480.00 Myers, Seth 7/22/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 7/23/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers; Seth 7/24/09 8.00 60.00 480.00 Administrative Neuvert, Makayle 7/24/09 .50 60.00 30.00 Totals 28.50 1,710.00 Total Labor 1,710.00 Labor Code 03 Professional Personnel Senior Planner Friend, Scott Friend, Scott Friend, Scott Friend, Scott Assistant Planner Anderson,- Nathan Anderson, Nathan Total this'Labor Code $1,710.00 Revise Draft MEA/ Prepare Final MEA Hours Rate Amount 7/9/09 .50 110.00 55.00 7/10/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 7/23/09 .50 11-0.00 55.00 7/24/09 1.50 110.00 165.00 7/24/09 5.00. 60.00 300.00 7/29/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Project 26-0170 ,BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29120 APPLICATIONS Totals 9.50 745.00 Total Labor 745.00 Total this Labor Code Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Director of Municipal Finance Bandy, Tom 7/20/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Bandy, Tom 7/27/09 1.00 155.00 155.00 Senior Planner Serafini, Dino 7/1/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Serafini, Dino...: 7/7/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Wong, Derek 6/29/09 5.00 110.00 550.00 Wong, Derek 6/30/09 5.50 110.00 605.00 Wong', Derek 7/1/09 - 4.00. 110.00 440.00 Wong, Derek 7/2/09 3.00 110.00 330'.00 Wong, Derek 7/8/09 .50 110.00 55.00 Wong, Derek 7/9/09 2.50 .110.00 275.00 Wong, Derek 7/10/09 1.00 110:00 110.00 Wong, Derek 7/13/09 1:.00 .110.00 110.00 - Wong, Derek 7/15/09 1.00. .110.00. 110.00 Public Finance Assistant ...Light, Julia 6/30/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 7/1/09 7.50 75.00 562.50 Light, Julia 7/2/09 7.00 75.00 525.00 . Light, Julia 7/6/09. 8.00 75.00 600.00 Light, Julia 7/7/09 6.00 .75.00 450.00 Light, Julia 7/8/09 5:5Q 75:00 412.50 Light, Julia 7/9/09 4.50 75.00. 337.50 Light, Julia 7/10/09 7.00 75.00 525.00' Light, Julia. 7/13/09 2.50 75.00 187.50 Light, Julia 7/16/09 3.00 75.00 225.00 Light, Julia 7/17/09 4.50 75.00 337.50 Light, Julia 7/20/09 4.00 75:00 300.00 Light, Julia 7/21/09 5.50 75.00 412.50 Light, Julia. 7/22/09 2.50: 75.00 187.50 Light, Julia 7/23/09 6.00 75.00 450.00 Light, Julia - 7/24/09 5.50 75.00 412.50 Light, Julia 7/27/09 6.00 75.00 450.00 Light, Julia 7/28/09 5.50 75.00 412:50 Light, Julia 7/29/09 4.50 75.00 337.50 Light, Julia 7/30/09 5.50 .75.00 412.50 Light, Julia 7/31/09 6.50 .75.00 487.50 $745.00 Page 2 J�. Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29120 APPLICATIONS Totals 143.00 11,795.00 Total Labor 11,795.00 Total this Labor Code $11,795.00 Labor Code EXP Expenses Reimbursable Expenses Phone & Communications 7/7/09 Unlimited Conferencing conference call 21.01 Total Rei.mbursables 21.01 21.01 Total this Labor Code $21.01 Billing Limits Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 14,271.01 164,008.62 178,279:63 Limit 253,362.00 Remaining 75,082.37 Total this Bitting Group $14,271.01 ., r Page 3 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29120 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $14,271.01 Outstanding Invoices Number. Date Balance 28691 6/15/09 17, 021.00 28949 .7/10/09 26,206.22 Total 43,227.22 Page 4 f>___-..____...-_ . ------- PMC INVOICE 2729 Prospect Park Drive Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Charles Thistlethwaite �� 1 17.E I Vol County of Butte D�ii 6( I 7 County Center Drive 1 BUTTE COLT 1f V SEP 18 2009 DEVELOPAIENT SERVICES September 17, 2009 Invoice No: 29438 Oroville, CA 95965 Project Manager Scott Friend Project '26-0170. BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Professional Services from August 1 .2U09"to Auciust 28. 2009 Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 04 Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Professional Personnel -Hours Rate Amount Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia 8/3/09 4.50 75.00 337.50 Light, Julia 8/4/09' 2.75 75.00 206.25 Light, Julia 8/5/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light, Julia 8/7/09 2.00 75.00 150.00 Light, Julia 8/10/09 3.75 75.00 281.25 Light, Julia - .8/14/09 6.50 75.00 487.50 Light, Julia 8/12/09 5.25 75.00 393.75 Light, Julia 8/13/09 8.00 75.00. 600.00 Light, Julia 8/17/09 4.50 75.00 337.50 Light, Julia 8/18/09. 3.00 75.00 225.00 Light, .Julia 8/19/09 4.00 75.00 300.00 Light, Julia. 8/20/09 3.50 75.00 262.50 tight, Julia. 8/21/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light, Julia 8/24/09 1.50 75.00 112.50 Light, Julia 8/27/09 3.00 75.00 225.00 Light, Julia. 8/28/09 8.00 75.00 600.00 Totals . 63.25 -4,743.75 Total Labor 4,743.75 Total this Labor Code $4,743.75 Billinng' 6m' its Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 4,743.75 180,347.13 185,090.88 Limit 253,362.00 Remaining 68,271.12 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29438 APPLICATIONS _.-- - Total this...Billing Grolip $4,743.7� . Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice29438 APPLICATIONS Total t is invoice ----�-�� Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 28691 .6/15/09 17,021.00 28949 7/10/09 26,206.22 29120 8/10/09 14,271.01 Total 57,498.23 Page 3 warm, PMC INVOICE JUL 13 2009 2729 Prospect Park Drive D1EVEi.i9l�i�I i, t Suite 220 SERVICES Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Charles Thistlethwaite © 40 July 10, 2009 County of Butte al1 vy Invoice No: 28949 7 County Center Drive 11 Oroville, CA 95965 � °per � � ,Ew- Project Manager Scott Friend Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Professional Services from May 30, 2009 to June 26, 2009 Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 02 Preparation of Draft MEA Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Hours Rate Amount Assistant Planner Friend, Scott 6/2/09 1.50 110.00 Anderson, Nathan 6/4/09 1.50 60.00 90.00 Anderson, Nathan 6/5/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Anderson, Nathan 6/8/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Granville, Dustin 6/3/09 4.00 60.00 240.00 Granville, Dustin 6/4/09 6.00 60.00 360.00 Myers, Seth 6/4/09 2.50 60.00 150.00 Myers, Seth 6/5/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth 6/12/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 6/15/09 1.50 60.00 90.00 Totals 21.50 1,29.0.00 Total Labor 1,290.00 Total this Labor Code $1,290.00 Labor Code 03 Revise Draft MEA/ Prepare Final MEA Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Senior Planner Friend, Scott 6/2/09 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 6/4/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott 6/5/09 2.00 110.00 220.00 Friend, Scott . 6/8/0.9 2.50 110.00 275.00 Friend, Scott 6/15/09 1.50 110.00 165.00 Friend, Scott 6/17/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 6/23/09 1.00 110.00 110.00 Friend, Scott 6/24/09 1.50 110.00 165.00 JT Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice28949 APPLICATIONS Totals 13.00 1,430.00 Total Labor 1,430.00 Labor Code 04 Professional Personnel Senior Planner Serafini, Dino Wong, Derek Wong, Derek Public Finance Assistant Light, Julia . Light, Julia Light, .Julia Light, Julia Light, Julia Total this Labor Code Infrastructure Assesment & Impact Fee Assessment Hours Rate 6/5/09 1.00 110.00 6/5/09 1.50 110.00 6/18/09 1.00 110.00 6/16/09 1.00 75.00 6/22/09 2.50 75.00 6/23/09- 2.50 75.00 6/24/09 3.00 75.00 6/25/09 1.50 75.00 Totals 14.00 Total Labor Labor Code EXP Expenses Consultants Civil Engineering Consultant 6/10/09 Omni -Means, Ltd. 6/29/09 Rolls Anderson Rolls Total Consultants Billing Limits Total Billings Limit Remaining Amount 110.00 165.00 110.00 75.00 187.50 187.50 225.00 112.50 1,172.50 Total this Labor Code $1,430.00 1,172.50 $1,172.50 Las Plumas 13,938.72 Las Plumas 8,375.00 22,313.72 22,313.72 Total this Labor Code $22,313.72 Current Prior To -Date 26,206.22 137,802.40 164, 008.62 246,437.00 82,428.38 Total this Billing Group $26,206.22 Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice28949 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $26,206.22 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 28691 6/15/09 17, 021.00 Total 17,021.00 Page 3 PMC INVOICE .-� 2729 Prospect Park Drive Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Charles Thistlethwaite County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Project 26-0170 � 1 K-"0vt 0/m, �' -7 -[ v a 9 q/ 17 Z Project Manager D r-� - r NfiY ,SUN 17 2009 DEVELOPIMEN ;1 SERVICES June 15, 2009 Invoice No: 28691 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS .Professional Services from April 25 2009 to May 29 2009 Billing Group 004 Las Plumas Master Environmental Assesment Project Labor Code 02 Preparation of Draft MEA Professional Personnel Scott Friend Hours Rate Amount Senior Environmental Planner Mike Martin 1/6/09 5.00 100.00 500.00 Assistant Planner Granville, Dustin 1/28/09 8.00 60.00 480.00 Granville, Dustin 2/4/09 4.00 60.00 240.00 Granville, Dustin 2/12/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Granville, Dustin 2/25/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville; Dustin 3/9/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Granville, Dustin 3/10/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Granville, Dustin 3/11/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Granville, Dustin 3/16/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Granville, Dustin 3/17/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth, 1/19/09 5.50 60.00 330.00 Myers, Seth 1/22/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers, Seth 1/23/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 1/26/09 7.00 60.00 420.00 Myers, Seth 1/27/09 5.00 60.00 300.00 Myers, Seth 2/6/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 2/9/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 2/18/09 .50 60.00 30.00 Myers, Seth 2/23/09 .50 60.00 30.00 Myers, Seth 2/24/09 6.50 60.00 390.00 Myers, Seth 2/25/09 6.00 60.00 360.00 Myers, Seth 2/26/09 4.00 60.00 240.00 Myers, Seth 2/27/09 2.00 60.00 120.00 Myers,.Seth 3/3/09 3.00 60.00 180.00 Myers, Seth 3/6/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 r1, Labor Code EXP Expenses Consultants Civil Engineering Consultant 5/12/09 Omni -Means, Ltd. Total Consultants Billing Limits Total Billings Limit Remaining Las Plumas 11,181.00 11,181.00 Total this Labor Code Current Prior To -Date 17, 021.00 120, 781.40 137, 802.40 246,437.00 108,634.60 Total this Billing Group 11,181.00 $11,181.00 $17,021.00 Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice28691 APPLICATIONS Myers, Seth 3/10/09 1.00 60:00 60.00 Myers, Seth 3/18/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 3/20/09 5.00 60.00 300.00 Myers, Seth 3/24/09 1.50 60.00 90.00 Myers, Seth 5/7/09 1.00 60.00 60.00 Myers, Seth 5/27/09 , 3.50 60.00 210.00 �.S I*�J Totals 94.00, 5,840.00 Total Labor+ �� ` ; j 5,840.00 1 ` Total this Labor Code $5,840.00 Labor Code EXP Expenses Consultants Civil Engineering Consultant 5/12/09 Omni -Means, Ltd. Total Consultants Billing Limits Total Billings Limit Remaining Las Plumas 11,181.00 11,181.00 Total this Labor Code Current Prior To -Date 17, 021.00 120, 781.40 137, 802.40 246,437.00 108,634.60 Total this Billing Group 11,181.00 $11,181.00 $17,021.00 Page 2 Project 26-0170 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Invoice28691 APPLICATIONS Total this Invoice $17,021.00 Outstanding Invoices Number 26650 27253 Total Date Balance 9/18/08 71.25 12/8/08 81.00 152.25 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 d 703 B STREET P. O. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE,CA 95901-0911 Flexyourpower! PHONE (530) 741-4025 Be energy efficient! FAX (530) 741-4825 TTY (530) 741-4509 ICOVNTY SEP 0 2 2009 "V.ELDls tW x S-901cES August 31, 2009 Butte County ZCA07-0005 Ag. Re -Use Ordinance SCH#2009082063 Ms. Claudia Stuart Butte County 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Ms. Stuart: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the ZCA07-0005 Agriculture Re -Use Ordinance and Agriculture Re -Use Site Inventory (SCH#2009082063), for the 15 sites identified as unsuitable for productive agriculture throughout Butte County. Caltrans has no comments as new development is not proposed at this time. We would like the opportunity to review and comment on any subsequent applications or actions on these properties. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Rupinder Jawanda at (530) 740-4989 or e-mail at rupinder_jawanda@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, SUKHVINDER (SUE) TAKHAR, Chief Office of Transportation Planning — North "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Stakeholder Meeting Augu's't 19;2009 10:'00'am'- noon Tahoe Conference Room 202 Mira' Loma Blvd. -Oroville, CA Meeting Purpose • Review key findings of the Draft MEA. • Questions and answers to facilitate public comment. • Clarify next steps. Agenda 10:00 am Meeting Goals and Overview Tim Snellings, Director of Development Services 10:05 am Project Background and Scope Claudia Stuart, Principal Planner 10:10 am Draft MEA: Summary Review, Key Findings to Date, Next Steps in the Analysis Scott Friend, PMC Bruce Nash, RAR Paul Miller, Omni -Means 10:45 am Next Steps - Entitlement Review Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager 11:00 am Questions and Answers Noon Adjourn ••�}`" C�y, �'-rr,,,� "'-Swb t'�i < i!�- � , r_..u_ _ I 1 r . �� � ZT awtu sena" Mw 1Communities:afCottonw66d Creek -7- City City of Oroville fl - j , t ,- �� i I , 4' + fit-- 4 LJ�,• f..� `�-fit.-•��F/�h-r�'rv��Lea Plwmt Avo.__. 1�'�k ��� ' Qovlpp gape � it` �Nilla�es at'LasPlumas� rr'." G—ale Potlae Vley, ' - -_�ti T ! •T,T- `_� ,T*•t �•-+„a.+•1.-�.'y Monta Vista -Park, -u,._; VanFr Zile Y ` I MontasVistal Estates. �De wne� - - MIa Ir Vista�C�eekiEstates' - J Hammons 411 0W!. 72 1-7 Jay W �......� Oroville SOI (Existing) PUM Oroville City Limit Las Plumas Study Area ® Pending Project Source: Butte County GP 2030 PLUA General Plan Desianation Reb1) - MU HDR I/SP 0 MHDR = R/C =MDR -P 0 RR Figure 2.1-3 Pending Projects PMG® City of Oroville GwgLa vadnc V r ''J .t'�..... �� :7'_. gift �'.,ti��.�u'�1. L": aC .�'i 1 1 ._'.;., •� ''�jr "��--\�-�'�'1fOmviu � '...'::L. ag L L. �--,-7--�.•.t -.._.. , ('-.t F .. i i��+- :� ., 7 ,... t L.................. trt i -Et iCommunities'at Cottonwood Creek X051fit ' Hamiitori j r ii f' t•'�il IT'Villages at Las,Plumas �1 � '171 Di3auine! 1 Monti vista Oroville SOI (Existing) Oroville City Limit P ! Las Plumas Study Area MPending Project Source: Butte County GP 2030 PLUA Ir Ashlock & HamMons - -= t t J -1i T General Plan Designation -R -MU HDR 01/SP = MHDR _ R/C M MDR MP 0 RR Figure 2.1-3 Pending Projects PMC® August 19, 2009 Meeting Name Title/Organization Email/Phone Cbl Gs 0 C1c� '-O Gly (331 kowo cvvf. ✓l SivAl c (r M AAA I A"O f-'flAj fflb it 1-4SO. a1i he.Iul'!x r a (Ovt (C),)Vc �TLV� Lkcs�j L�.Co f �acaa (�covh •r. -f s-��.►� c -{i -s L KFC0 6 b a6 e— C-0 KQ-t CC) ACL D � D om. So LI -3i =kWASE Ew M te,gkm e -VA -iv-( EU,9vs F%&, L"QA*-.PA o •vr� plhe �e f (aC f� &Aij �Oaej Z-CaTr I Loo- J_j) 12 l; j�fF s�l�el� vkty 0%.-Oyck° �e((IQ evAIUek,C4) IFN L im Name Title/Organization Email/Phone S�FerpIS-4 I,4afelf-t 'jjCe•)Nkty 13,**~ . 8.3 Q�,ec�r�3 nKl6r �o6uri�e �v�.x-r, A ego � n I ,o►moi', t4' G S, e Ww f -Q,� G� ��C I n l .! •` _ t. - .r }• 1 {• c.. ~ .'i 1, (• ����y.Y *11 . J�. '♦S�\. ♦ ..SSI• 'l.t"4•�` �.jv l l�4'..hY •...Sa.:�. .Ll 4si, 1'..••.,� i��. �)`, 7 . • � ill ♦ ; 1 t Comments on LPSA MEA Shari McCracken — Deputy CAO 6/29/09 General Comments • . The MEA discusses "providing base information for use in infrastructure assessments and impact fee assessment for the Las Plumas Study Area" but I see no discussion regarding how services will be paid for, since the tax base most likely won't be sufficient to support additional personnel/services (e.g., fire, law enforcement, road maintenance/repair). Page 2.2-5 Discussion regarding City of Oroville and funding for additional service provision provided by a combination of development fees and increases in the City's General Fund resulting from the expanding tax base. — COMMENT- you can't.pay for services with development fees, only infrastructure and possibly equipment.: Also, residential doesn't pay for itself through the increased tax base. Page 2.2-5 Though I know the statement that "One contributing factor to the higher crime rate appears to be the large unincorporated population adjacent to the City which.does not have similar officer coverage" is in the Draft MSR for the City of Oroville, the County does not agree with the statement, nor do I recall that there is anything substantive to support that statement. There may be reactions to it. Page 2.2-5 Is the LPSA within the boundaries of the. CFDs formed by Oroville? Would they have the LPSA annex to the CFD's? Page 2.2-6 It is important to note that the Public Defender services are funded by the County's General Fund. There are no state and federal funds that pay for that service. Page 2.2-7 The jail houses people taken into custody by all law enforcement agencies within Butte County, not just BCSO and CHP. The cities and Town also send their arrestees to the County jail. Page 2.2-8 Is it true that' there are 11 burned out residences in the El Medio fire District? Has no one complained about them and are they a public health and safety hazard? Should the County be abating the properties, or are we in the process, or is this old information? Page 2.2-14 Is.it appropriate to add in a statement that though the existing County General Plan does not identify an average response time goal of fire services throughout the County, the Board did adopt response time goals in 2008 (2009?) that will be included in the updated General Plan? 1 of 2 Should you include the Board -adopted response times in this MEA, even if they are not in the General Plan? Page 2.2-15 We just counted the number of County fire stations for a federal stimulus grant, and according to the Fire Department staff there are 26 stations. Please check this information. Page 2.2-16 I believe that the Fire Emergency Command Center (ECC) also provides dispatching for Biggs and Gridley. Check this. Page 2.2-17 I believe that the automatic aid agreement referenced for Oroville is between Oroville, El Medio, and BCFD. I don't believe CalFire is signatory on that auto aid agreement. Check this. 2.2-21 Would it be important to note that thought incorporated jurisdictions within Butte County have adopted the Uniform Fire Code, the County has not? Page 2.3-9 The discussion regarding Development Impact Fees for FRRPD doesn't make sense .... see below. I don't believe the City of Oroville has anything to do with the impact fees collected for building in the unincorporated area. • FRRPD estimates that it will receive approximately $1, 000 for each new home built in the unincorporated areas. This is due to the fact that the City of Oroville collects the fees, divides the fees into categories for regional parks and neighborhood parks and retains sole control of what projects FRRPD can build using fees. 2 of 2 Page 1 of .2 Stuart, Claudia.: From: 'Stuart, Claudia Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:05 PM To: 'Paul MILLER' Cc: Scott Friend; Snellings, Tim; Breedon, Dan; 'Thistlethwaite, Charles; Jolliffe, Stacey; . Michelena, Mark; Crump, Mike; Edell, Stuart; Lundbom, Paul; Sanders, Ian Subject: Las Plumas DMEA - Traffic Analysis Meeting Attachments: 9—Circulation.doc; Scan of BCGP2.030 Appendix B.pdf. Paul, Thank you.for a good meeting on Tuesday. Following is a summary of the in needs that we covered, a's . listed in the agenda attachment that you put together: A) Roadway Cross-Section Standards - I understand the Stu Edell and Charles Rutter of your staff have exchanged the necessary information regarding the County standards. I forwarded Oroville's updated standards to you earlier today, with an additional note to use a revised standard for 4-lane arterials in the . Sphere. The information you have now represents full. agreement by all parties:,. B) Roadway LOS Thresholds — Both acceptable LOS thresholds,and the use of peak-hour values were confirmed at the meeting. LOS targets will be based on policies in both Butte County. General Plan 2030 and the recently adopted Oroville General Plan. The targets in the two General Plans, including the County policy to use the City's LOS targets in the Sphere, represent full agreement. We also agreed that "conventional' traffic volume thresholds, rather than the City's thresholds, will be used in the analysis of LOS levels. C) Oro Dam Bypass Alignment —. At the meeting we discussed this alignment and itspotential effects.on the analysis. You proposed to run the model without the bypass and indicated that it appears from your work thus far that Oro Dam Boulevard can be improved to meet LOS targets without the bypass. However, should the analysis show Oro Dam falling below its target. LOS of E, a.change in scope and budget would be needed to re-run the analysis using the bypass. The DMEA can further indicate that the Las Plumas projects will need to set aside ROW for the bypass.. The County has not yet had an opportunity to confirm this approach; please do not complete this section of the analysis until receiving confirmation from the County next week on these points. D)-'Future, Conditions Horizon Year — Our Planning staff believes that the MEA model created by Fehr and Peers epresents Year 2030. However, specific traffic engineering expertise may be needed to clarify this point. if you need confirmation on this point from the County and/or Fehr and Peers I am available to assist. , Oroville Gold Project We also'discussed the Oroville Gold proposal during the meeting.-You indicatedthat you did not expect . this project to change the cost implications of the infrastructure analysis. You also indicated that . . incorporating this proposed project into the model would require a budget augmentation. The County will confirm its direction on this point when we provide final comments on the DMEA next week. Oroville Bike Plan Have you received this directly from the City? Administrative Draft Butte Cou6ly.General:Plan 2030 Circulation Element. The County received the Administrative Draft of BCGP2030 this week. To assist.in your analysis l have attached the Circulation Element, as well as a scan of Appendix B - Existing and Future Levels of LOS. The policies in these documents should be consistent with what we have discussed. to date. Please note that these documents are for.Omni-Means' use in the MEA only, and may not be further distributed. 6/26/2009 A P P E N D .t X B EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................. Appendix B Existing and Future Year Level of Service 6/18/2009 Roadway Segment Jurisdiction LOS Policy Existing Cap Class PM Volume LOS Year 2030 Cap Class PM Volume LOS I Muir Ave. to East Ave. Caltrans E Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,600 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,340 D t East Ave. to W. Sacramento Ave. Caltrans E Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,750 E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,300 D f W. Sacramento Ave. to W. 1 st St. Caltrans E Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,000 E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,450 D l - W. 1 at St. to W. 5th St. . - Caltrans E 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 2,800 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,280 D i W. 5th St. to 8th/9th/Walnut St. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,500 A -C . 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 1,920 0 S032 8th St. One way WB ,Walnut to Main Caltrans E 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,100 A -C 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,560 D 9th St. One way EB). Walnut to Main Caltrans E 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,000 A -C 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,350 D I - 8th St. (WB), Main to SR 99 Caltrans E 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,400 D 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,880 D I 9th St. EB Main St. to SR 99 Caltrans E 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,600 D 3 -Lane Arterial One way Roadway 2,000 D I SR99 to Yosemite 1 Caltrans E Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway1,500 0 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3.04 D Yosemite Dr. to Humboldt Rd. Ho S rin s Caltrans D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,050 D Major 2 -Lane HighwaylExpressway 1,18 D Humboldt Rd. H.S. to Robert E. Lee Dr. F.R. Caltrans D Maor 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 400 A -C Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 520 A -C I Yuba County Line to Lower Honcut Rd. Caltrans D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway -1,150 D 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,670 A -C Lower Honcut Rd. to East Gridley Rd. Caltrans D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,250 D 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,770 A -C East Gridley Rd. to Palermo Rd. Caltrans D IMajor 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,200 D 4 -Lane Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,150 A -C Palermo Rd. to SR 162 Caltrans D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,350 0 2 -Lane Freeway 2.160 A -C SR 70 SR 162 to Montgomery SL Caltrans C 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,800 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway 3,680 A -C Montgomery St. to Grand Ave.. Caltrans C 4 -Lane, Mufti -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,800 D 4 -Lane Freeway 4,480 A -C Grand Ave. to SR 149 Caltrans C 4 -Lane, Mufti -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,950 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway 3,200 A -C SR 149 to SR 191 Caltrans C Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 950 D 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 990 A -C SR 191 to Pentz Rd. Caltrans C Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 300 A -C Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 310 A -C Pentz Rd. to Biq Bend Rd. Concow Caltrans C Minor 2 -Lane Highway 200 A -C Minor 2 -Lane Highway 280 A -C Sutter County line to Archer Ave. Caltrans E 2 -Lane Arterial 1,800 E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,580 D Archer Ave. to Spruce St.(Gridley) Caltrans E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,350 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 2,970 D Spruce St. to East Biggs Hwy. Caltrans E I Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,650 E 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,260 A -C East Biggs Hwy. SR 162 East Caltrans E I Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,100 D Major 2 -lane Highway/Expressway 1,860 E SR 162 to East to SR 149 Caltrans E I Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,000 D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,760 E SR 149 to Durham - Pentz Rd. Caltrans E 4 -Lane, Mutti-Lane Hi hwa /Ex resswa 2,500 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway 4,600 A -C SR 99 Durham - Pentz Rd to Skyway Caltrans E 4 -lane, Mufti -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,550 D 4 -Lane Freeway 5,140 A -C Skyway to East 20th St. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Freeway 4,650 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway 6,830 D East 20th to SR 32 Caltrans E 4 -Lane Freeway 6,400 D 4 -Lane Freeway + Aux Lane 9,160 E SR 32 to Cohasset Rd. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Freeway 6,450 D. 6 lane freeway 9,300 E Cohasset Rd. to East Ave. Caltrans E 3 -Lane Freeway + Auxiliary Lane 3,750 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway 5,740 A -C East Ave. to Eaton Rd. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Freeway 2,650 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway 4,210 A -C Eaton Rd. to Keefer Rd. Caltrans E 2 -Lane Arterial 1.700 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2 20 SR 149 SR 70 to SR 99 Caltrans D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,55 D 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,Q80 D, Glenn County line to SR 99 south intersect Caltrans D 2 -Lane Arterial 150 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 210: A -C ; SR 99 north Intersect to Larkin Rd. Caltrans D Minor 2 -Lane Highway 850 D Mirror 2 -Lane Highway, 880 D Larkin Rd. to SR 70 Caftrans 0 Minor 2 -Lane Highway 1,315 D 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,850 A -C SR 70 to Feather River Blvd. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,850 E 6 -Lane Arterial Divided 4.610 . 0 SR 162 Feather River Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,900 F 6 -Lane Arterial, Divided 4,780, D Lincoln Blvd. to Olive Hwy. Caltrans E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 3,050 F 6 -Lane Arterial, Divided 4,520 D Olive Hwy. to Lower Wyandotte Rd. Caltrans E Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,950 F 6 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,910 D Lower Wyandotte Rd. to Foothill Blvd. Caltrans E Maio r 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,85 E 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,480 D Foothill Blvd. to Canyon Dr. Caltrans E Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,200 D Major 2 -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,93 E Canyon Dr. to Forbestown Rd, Caltrans D Mirror 2 -Lane Highway 650 A -C Minor 2 -Lane Highway 1 1b0 D SR 70 to Durham-Pentz Rd. Caltrans D Minor 2 -Lane Highway 650 A -C Minor 2 -Lane Highway 710 0 SR 191 Durham-Pentz Rd. to Airport Rd. Caltrans D Minor 2 -Lane Highway 650 A -C Minor 2 -Lane Highway 660 AC Airport Rd. to Bushmann Rd.. Caltrans D Minor 2 -Lane Highway 900 D Minor 2 -Lane Highway 1,150. 0 Buschmann Rd. to Pearson Rd. Caltrans E Minor 2 -Lane Highway 950 D Minor 2 -Lane Highway 1,260 0 Aguas Fdas Rd. Durham -Dayton Rd. to Grainland Ave. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 170 A -C Grainland Ave. to SR 162 Butte I C 2 -Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C Biggs East Hwy. Biggs to SR 99 . Butte _ C 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 220 A C SR 99 to Larkin Rd. _ Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 250 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 260 A -C Clark Rd. Wagstaff Rd. to Skyway ButteI C 2 -lane Arterial 970 A-0 111 ane Arterial, Undivided 1,050 A -C r . _r . F Appendix B ' Existing and Future Year Level of Service t: 6/1812009 Roadway Segment Jurisdiction LOS Policy Existing r Cap Class PM Volume LOS Year 2030 Cap Class PM Volume LOS 59 SR 99 to East Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,100 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,230 D 60 East Ave. to Lupin Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,500 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,110 D 61 Cohasset Rd. Lupin Rd. to E. Lassen Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,200 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,550 A -C 62 Lassen Ave. to Boeing Dr. Chico M. Airport) Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 1,250 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,820 D 63 Boeing Dr. to Keefer Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 300 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 410 A -C 64 Keefer Rd. to Vilas Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 240 A -C 65 Colusa County line to Pennington Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 70 A -C 66 Colusa Hwy. Pennington Rd. to Biggs Gridley Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 67 Biggs Gridley Rd. to SR 99 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 750 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 890 A -C 68 Dayton Rd. SR 32 to Hagan Lane Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 600 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 700 A -C 69 H an Lane to Durham -Dayton Hwy. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 370 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 530 A -C 70 Dayton Rd. to Midway Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 430 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 450 A -C 71 Durham -Dayton Hwy. Midway to Stanford Lane Butte C -2-Lane Arterial 200 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 270 A -C 72 Stanford Lane to SR 99 Butte C12 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 270 A -C 73 Durham-Pentz Rd. SR 99 to SR 191 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 818 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 820 A -C 74 SR 191 to Pentz Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 197 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 210 A -C 75 SR 32 to Cussick Ave. Chico D 4 -1 -ane Arterial, Undivided 1,350 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 2,150 D 76 Cussick Ave. to Esplanade Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,050 D 4 -Lane Arterial Divided 2,770 D 77 Esplanade to SR 99 Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,250 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided, 3,440 D 78 SR 99 to Cohasset Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,200 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 1,950 D 79 East Ave. - Manzanita Cohasset Rd. to Floral Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,500 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,030 D BO Ave. - Bruce Ave. Floral Ave. to Mariposa Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,750 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,220 D 81 Mariposa Ave. to Marigold Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,000 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 1,240 A -C 82 83 Marigold Ave. to Manzanita Ave. Chico D 2 -lane Arterial 1,000 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,340 A -C East Ave. to Vallombrosa Ave. Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 1,008 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,730 A -C B4 California Park Dr. to SR 32 Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 1,200 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,230 D BS East Gridley Rd. SR 99 to Larkin Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 551 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 970 A -C B6 Larkin Rd. to SR 70 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 550 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 960 A -C B7 Esplanade to SR 99 Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 1,346 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,720 A -C B8 Eaton Rd. SR 99 to Hicks Lane Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 950 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,400 D B9 Hicks Lane to Cohasset Rd. Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 924 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,230 A -C 90 SR 99 to Garner Lane Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 120 A -C 91 Gamer Lane to Eaton Rd. Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 819 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 840 A -C , 92 Eaton Rd. to Lassen Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,276 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,370 A -C 93 Esplanade Lassen Ave. to East Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,850 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,040 D 94 East Ave. to Cohasset Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 1,850 A -C 4 -Lane, MuIU-Lane Highway/Expressway 2,180 A -C 95 Cohassel Rd. to E. 9th Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane, Mufti -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,200 A -C 4 -Lane, Mulff-Lane Highway/Expressway 2,710 D 96 E. 9th Ave. to E. 1 sl Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane, MuIB-Lane Highway/Expressway 1,950 A -C 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,200 A -C 97 E. 1st Ave. to Main SUBroadway Chico D 4 -Lane Mufti -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,200 A -C 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway 2,620 D 98 Main St. NB Esplanade/E. 1st St. to 9th St. Chico D 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway. 1,250 A -C 3 -Lane Arterial, One way Roadway 1,640 D 99 Broadway SB Esplanade/E. 1st St. to 9th St. Chico D 3 -Lane Arterial One way Roadway 950 A -C 3 -Lane Arterial One way Roadway 1,150 A -C DO E. 9th St. to 16th St Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,650 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,270 D D1 Park Ave. E. 16th St. to E. 20th St. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,487 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 2,190 D D2 E. 20th St. to Fast Park Ave. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial Divided 1,150 A -C Lane Arterial, Divided 11,740 A -C D3 E. Park Ave. Park Ave. to SR 99 Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,250 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,43 34 Forbestown Rd. SR 162 to Lum kin Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial A-C 2 -Lane Arterial 680 A -C 15 Hagan Lane Dayton Rd. to S.P. Railroad tracks . Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 440 A -C 76 S.P. Railroad tracks to MidwayButte C 2 -Lane Arterial A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 520 A -C 37 Hone Run Rd. Skyway to Centeryille Rd. Butte C M 'or 2 -Lane Collector A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 830 A -C )8 Centerville Rd. Hone Run Rd. to Nimshew Rd. Butte C Major 2 -Lane Collector d4OO A -C Major 2 -Lane Collector 120 A -C 10 Nimshew Rd. Centerville to S a Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 70 A -C SR 162 to E. Hamilton Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 510 A -C 2 13 Larkin Rd. E. Hamilton Rd. to East Bi s Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial A -C 2 -Lane Arterial. 150 A -C East Biggs Hwy. to E. Gridley Butte C 2 - Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 9U A1) 14 E. Gridley . to E. Evans Reimer Rd. Butte I C 2 -Lane Arterial 250 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 920 A -C - •� r r ..t _ 4 Appendix B N • _ - Existing Year 2030 ID RoadwaySegment Jurisdiction LOS Poll Ca Class PM Volume LOS Ca Class PM Volume LOS 115 SR 162 to Marysville Ba ett Rd. - Oroville D 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided - 1,100 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 2,040 D .116 Marysville Ba ett Rd. to Monte Vista Ave. Oroville _ D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 850 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,770 D Lincoln Blvd. - - 2 - = - _ 117 _ Monte Vista Ave. to O hir Rd. Oroville D - 2 -Lane Arterial -- .700 - - A -C -Lane Arterial 1,210 D 118 0 hir Rd. to Palermo Rd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 500 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,130 D 119 SR 70 to Palermo Honcut Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 60 A -C Lower Honcut Rd. 120 Palermo Honcut . to LaPorte Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 60 A•C 121 LaPorte Rd. Lower Honcut Rd. to Oro -Bangor Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 122 SR 162 to Oro -Bangor Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 712 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 900 A•C Lower Wyandotte Rd. - Arterial 123 Oro -Bangor . to 0 hir Rd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 600 A•C 2 -Lane 780 A -C 124 Upper Palermo Rd. O hir Rd. to Palermo Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 311 A•C 2 -Lane Arterial 340 A -C 125 Palermo Honcut . Palermo Rd. to Lower Honcut Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A•C 2 -Lane Arterial 130 A -C 126 East Park Ave. to H an Lane Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 1,399 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,580 A -C Midway 127 H an Lane to Durham -Dayton Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 857 A•C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 1,170 A -C 128 SR 70 to Lincoln Blvd. Oroville . D 2 -Lane Arterial 637 A•C 2 -Lane Arterial 980 D Montgomery St. 129 Lincoln Blvd. to Table Mountain Blvd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 625 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,210 D 130 Lincoln Blvd. to Lower Wyandotte Rd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 196 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 350 A -C 131 Lower Wyandotte Rd. to Foothill Blvd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 340 A -C Oroville -Bangor Hwy. 132 Foothill Blvd. to Swedes Flat Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 178 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 230 A -C SSwedes Rd. Butte Arterial A -C 2 Arterial -C 93133 Flat C 2 -Lane 186 -Lane 200 A 134 Upper Palermo Rd. to Lincoln Blvd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 120 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 140 A -C 135 Palermo Rd. Lincoln Blvd. to Lone Tree Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 150 A -C 136 Lone Tree Rd. to SR 70 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 137 SR 70 to Messilla Valle Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 330 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 340 A -C Pentz Rd. 138 Messilla Valle Rd. to Malibu Dr. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 500 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 530 A -C 139 SR 99 to Notre Dame Blvd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 3,139 F 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,140 D 140 Notre Dame Blvd. to Bruce Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,200 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,210 D 141 Bruce Rd. to Hone Run Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 3,400 F 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,410 D 142 Hone Run Rd. to Pearson Rd. Butte C 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway2,500 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway3,540 A -C 143 Pearson Rd. to Bille Rd. Butte C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,940 D 4 -Lane Freeway3,120 A -C 144 Skyway Bille Rd. to Wagstaff Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,700 D 4 -Lane Freeway2,060 A•C 145 Wagstaff Rd. to Clark Rd. Butte C 2 -Lana Arterial 1,000 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,130 A•C 146 Clark Rd. to Coutolenc Rd. Butte C 2-L ane Arterial 1,604 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,610 A -C 147 Coutolenc Rd. to Nimshew Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,000 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,070 A -C 148 , • Nimshew Rd. to Lovelock Rd. Butte . C 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A•C _ 2 -Lane Arterial 210 A•C -- 149 Lovelock Rd. to Powellton Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 150 Table Mountain Blvd.Coun Mont ome St. to County Center Dr. Oroville D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,024 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,640 A -C 151 Center Dr. to SR 70 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,020 D 4 -Lane Arteri Notes: Jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiciton where the LOS appropriate LOS policy is derived from. Butte - Butte County unincorporated LOS C. Caltrans = State facility that references concept report level of service (varies by location). Chico - within Chico City Limit or Chico Sphere of Influence (SOI), references Chico's flexible LOS D standard. Oroville - within Oroville City Limit or 5O1, references Oroville's flexible LOS D standard. - PM Volume represents the PM peak hour. _ ., al, Undivided 1,230 A -C • _ - Existing Year 2030 ID RoadwaySegment Jurisdiction LOS Poll Ca Class PM Volume LOS Ca Class PM Volume LOS 115 SR 162 to Marysville Ba ett Rd. - Oroville D 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided - 1,100 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 2,040 D .116 Marysville Ba ett Rd. to Monte Vista Ave. Oroville _ D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 850 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,770 D Lincoln Blvd. - - 2 - = - _ 117 _ Monte Vista Ave. to O hir Rd. Oroville D - 2 -Lane Arterial -- .700 - - A -C -Lane Arterial 1,210 D 118 0 hir Rd. to Palermo Rd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 500 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,130 D 119 SR 70 to Palermo Honcut Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 60 A -C Lower Honcut Rd. 120 Palermo Honcut . to LaPorte Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 50 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 60 A•C 121 LaPorte Rd. Lower Honcut Rd. to Oro -Bangor Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 122 SR 162 to Oro -Bangor Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 712 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 900 A•C Lower Wyandotte Rd. - Arterial 123 Oro -Bangor . to 0 hir Rd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 600 A•C 2 -Lane 780 A -C 124 Upper Palermo Rd. O hir Rd. to Palermo Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 311 A•C 2 -Lane Arterial 340 A -C 125 Palermo Honcut . Palermo Rd. to Lower Honcut Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A•C 2 -Lane Arterial 130 A -C 126 East Park Ave. to H an Lane Chico D 2 -Lane Arterial 1,399 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,580 A -C Midway 127 H an Lane to Durham -Dayton Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 857 A•C 4 -Lane Arterial Undivided 1,170 A -C 128 SR 70 to Lincoln Blvd. Oroville . D 2 -Lane Arterial 637 A•C 2 -Lane Arterial 980 D Montgomery St. 129 Lincoln Blvd. to Table Mountain Blvd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 625 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,210 D 130 Lincoln Blvd. to Lower Wyandotte Rd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 196 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 350 A -C 131 Lower Wyandotte Rd. to Foothill Blvd. Oroville D 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 340 A -C Oroville -Bangor Hwy. 132 Foothill Blvd. to Swedes Flat Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 178 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 230 A -C SSwedes Rd. Butte Arterial A -C 2 Arterial -C 93133 Flat C 2 -Lane 186 -Lane 200 A 134 Upper Palermo Rd. to Lincoln Blvd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 120 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 140 A -C 135 Palermo Rd. Lincoln Blvd. to Lone Tree Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 150 A -C 136 Lone Tree Rd. to SR 70 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A -C 137 SR 70 to Messilla Valle Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 330 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 340 A -C Pentz Rd. 138 Messilla Valle Rd. to Malibu Dr. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 500 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 530 A -C 139 SR 99 to Notre Dame Blvd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 3,139 F 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,140 D 140 Notre Dame Blvd. to Bruce Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,200 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 2,210 D 141 Bruce Rd. to Hone Run Rd. Chico D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 3,400 F 4 -Lane Arterial, Divided 3,410 D 142 Hone Run Rd. to Pearson Rd. Butte C 4 -Lane, Multi -Lane Highway/Expressway2,500 A -C 4 -Lane Freeway3,540 A -C 143 Pearson Rd. to Bille Rd. Butte C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,940 D 4 -Lane Freeway3,120 A -C 144 Skyway Bille Rd. to Wagstaff Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,700 D 4 -Lane Freeway2,060 A•C 145 Wagstaff Rd. to Clark Rd. Butte C 2 -Lana Arterial 1,000 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,130 A•C 146 Clark Rd. to Coutolenc Rd. Butte C 2-L ane Arterial 1,604 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,610 A -C 147 Coutolenc Rd. to Nimshew Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,000 D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,070 A -C 148 , • Nimshew Rd. to Lovelock Rd. Butte . C 2 -Lane Arterial 200 A•C _ 2 -Lane Arterial 210 A•C -- 149 Lovelock Rd. to Powellton Rd. Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 100 A -C 2 -Lane Arterial 110 A -C 150 Table Mountain Blvd.Coun Mont ome St. to County Center Dr. Oroville D 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,024 A -C 4 -Lane Arterial, Undivided 1,640 A -C 151 Center Dr. to SR 70 Butte C 2 -Lane Arterial 1,020 D 4 -Lane Arteri Notes: Jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiciton where the LOS appropriate LOS policy is derived from. Butte - Butte County unincorporated LOS C. Caltrans = State facility that references concept report level of service (varies by location). Chico - within Chico City Limit or Chico Sphere of Influence (SOI), references Chico's flexible LOS D standard. Oroville - within Oroville City Limit or 5O1, references Oroville's flexible LOS D standard. - PM Volume represents the PM peak hour. _ ., Page -1 of 3 Stuart, Claudia From: Damon, Matt [Matt.Damon@fire.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:11 PM. To: Stuart, Claudia; McCracken, Shari Cc: Morris, George Subject: RE: Request for Review; Las Plumas Draft:MEA Shari & Claudia, This is a well-written document that accurately depicts the fire protection situation: in this area. There are a couple of minor factual errors regarding EMFPD and OFD that appear to be based on:an outdated study. One is. regarding the invenforyof fire engines at: EI Medio and the: other is the building and fire code enforcement at' the City of Oroville. However, neither error has a major impact on the report: Please let.me know if I can be of any. further assistance Matt Darvon Fire Captain- Deputy Fhe Marshal -CAL RhU/B C *Fee 176N&�mAvenue Omv&, CA 95966 530-538-6837 at- 166 Oboe 530-990-5817 Ce]t 530-538-2105 Fax. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable, laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended, recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. From: Stuart, Claudia [mailto:CStuart@buttecounty.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:10 AM To: McCracken- Shari' . Cc: Damon, Matt Subject: RE: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft.MEA Shari.and Matt, We delivered Shari's CD this morning. We expect to deliver Matt's shortly. .After you have a. chance to take a look at the document, would you let me know whether you.will be able to return comments by early next week? Matt, please see.the.trailing email re. the section we, are requesting Fire -to review. Please feel free to contact me to discuss. Thank you. Claudia Claudia Stuart Principal Planner - Special Projects Butte CountyDepartment of Development Services 7 CountyCenter Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone .530753'8-7'604. Fax 530-538-7785 6/25/2009 Page 2 of 3 Email: cstuart(@buftecountv.net From: McCracken, Shari Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 2:01 PM To: Stuart, Claudia Cc: Damon, Matt Subject: FW:, Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA . Claudia.- FYI.- neither Matt Damon (Fire) or I can get into the shared directory you referenced below. Please e- . mail:or send hard copies of the document to both of us. Thanks! . . Shari ...Shari McCracken . Deputy Administrative Officer 25 County Center Drive Oroville; .CA. 95965:. (530) 538-2863: (530) 538-7120 (FAX) "Do not go. where the path maylead - Go instead where there is no path.and leave a trail." Emerson From: Damon, Matt [ma iIto: Matt. Damon@fire.ca.gov]. Sent: Monday,7une,22, 2009 1:58 PM To: McCracken, Shari . Subject: FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA Shari, do not ,have access to the folder referenced below._ How do I get.a copy of this document? Thanks for your. ...help,. Matt Damon ...� QVtain - Deputy eke Marshal RNW/ Butb Cam* Fo e 176 N&mAveiiue bn, CA95966 . 534538-6837 ext 166.011ioe 530-990-5817 Cen 530-538-2105 Fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception; review, use.ordisclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws includingahe Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication: From: Stuart,.Claudia [mailto:CStuart@buttecounty.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:21 PM To: McCracken, Shari; Damon, Matt; Reniff, Perry Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Snellings, Tim Subject: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA 6/25/2009 Page I of 3 DDS has received the Administrative Draft of the Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) from'our .,consultant. The document is intended to clarify issues as well as infrastructure and service needs associated with .7 development proposals.for approx. 1,700 new dwellings. in the unincorporated Las Plumas/South Oroville area. A subsequent section of the document,..to be prepared in:the next stage of the project, will*assess the: fiscal impact of these proposals andestimate development impact fees. The draft document has been filed on the CountyShare Drive under DS/Admin/SHARED DOCUMENTS. (It is the only document in the SHARED DOCUMENTS folder.) Please let me know if you have any difficulty. accessing this folder or the document. DDS is requesting review of the document by the CAO office, Sheriff's office,. and Fire,. Law Enforcement. is addressed on pages 2.2-1 through 2.2-7 of the document. Fire Protection Services are addressed on pages 2.2-8 through 2:2-22. To assist in yourreview, the contracted Scope of Work for the MEA is available on the County website at http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/lasplumas/pmc mea. roposal FINAL 2007-08=15 pdf. DDS would appreciate. your department's comments by next Thursday, June 25". We expect to return consolidated County comments to our consultant on June 26th, and to meet with external partners (applicants,: LAFCO, Oroville staff, other service providers, etc.) to review the public draft as soon as possible after the administrative draft has been revised. (We also expect to.review proposed roadway improvements with Oroville' staff next week prior to finalizing the Traffic section and releasing the draft.) Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for further information about any aspect of this project. I, would also be pleased to arrange a discussion with our consultant if that would be helpful. Thank you. . Claudia. Stuart Principal Planner Special Projects Butte County Department of Development Services 7. County. Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 530-538-7604 Fax 530-538-7785 Email: cstuart.buttecounty. net 6/25/2009 Page l of 3 Stuart, Claudia From: Smith, Jerry Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:07 AM' To: Stuart, Claudia Subject: FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas. Draft MEA . Claudia, looks good with the only correction of BOC: thanks From:. Jones, Jerry Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:58 PM To: Smith, Jerry Subject: RE: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA Jerry; Jail portion looks -accurate except BOC. (Board of Corrections) needs to be. changed to CSA (Correction Standards Authority): From: Smith, Jerry. Sent: Tuesday; June 23, 2009.3:06 PM To: Jones, Jerry Subject:. FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA jerry if the jail .stuff looks ok, I will resopnd to this lady. From: Callas, James.... Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:32 AM To: Smith, Jerry Subject: FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA J W, don't.see any problem.with the law enforcement portion of this report. If you concur, will.you please respond . to Claudia Stuart with that assessment: Thanks. Jim From: Stuart; Claudia Sent: Friday; June 19, 2009 1:59PM To: Callas, James; Smith, Jerry. Cc: Stockton; Pat Subject:. RE: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA Attached is a red uced-size.version of the.document for your review. This should be adequate for viewing, although the resolution may be reduced for. printing.. Please. let me: know if you. have any further difficulties in using this document for review..Thank you! Claudia. From: Callas, James. Sent: Friday;. June 19, 200912:44 PM To: Stuart, Claudia Page 2 .of 3 Cc: Stockton; Pat Subject: FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA I am still.unable to review.the MEA as I cannot access the DS'folder on the County shared drive: From: Stockton, Pat Sent: Thursday, June 18,.2009 10:32 AM To:. Robison, Art Cc: Stuart, Claudia; Wilson; Cyndi; Damon, Matt; Callas, James; Smith, Jerry. Subject: FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA Art' :.I've moved the SHARED DOCUMENTS folder to County.Share:\DS\Presentations, and would like to have the group DSSDLGrp - DDSList be able to access, read, write and modify any documents in that folder. F think I made this easier, hope didn't make it more complicated. Or is there someone else I should be contacting for this? Thanks!. Pat From: Wilson, Cyndi[mailto:Cyndi.Wilson@fire.ca.gov] - Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:12 AM To: Stockton, Pat; Robison, Art. Subject:. FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA Please see the email below, in the highlighted area is:a folder we need to have access'too, is this something you can help me with? Thanks!! Cynthia R. Wilson Office Technician "' . CAL FAZE/Butte-County Fire 176.Nelson. Ave Oroville, CA 95965 ..'53b-538-6302, 530-538-2105 (Fax) www.buttecounty.net/fire . "Don't `go' through.life; `GROW through, ife/!" From: Damon, Matt Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:39 AM To: Wilson, Cyndi. Subject: FW: Request for Review: Las Plumas Draft MEA Would you look up' the highlited doc below. Thanks; 6/25/2009 Page 3 of 3 From: Stuart, Claudia [mailto:CStuart@buttecounty.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 17 ,2009 5:21 PM To: McCracken, Shari; Damon, Matt; Reniff, Perry . .Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Snellings, Tim Subject: Request for Review: Las Plumas DraftMEA DDS has received the Administrative Draft of the Las Plumas Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), from our :. consultant. The document is intended to clarify issues as well as infrastructure and service needs associated with 7 development proposals for approx. 1,700 new dwellings in the unincorporated Las Plumas/South Oroville area. A subsequent section of the document, to be prepared in the next stage of the project, will assess the fiscal impact of these proposals :and estimate development impact fees. The draft document has been filed on the CountyShare Drive under DS/Admin/SHARED DOCUMENTS. .(It is the only document in the SHARED DOCUMENTS folder.) Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing this folder or the document: DDS is. requesting review of the document by the CAO office, Sheriffs office, and Fire. Law Enforcementis addressed on pages 2.2-1 through 2.2-7 of the document. Fire Protection Services are addressed on pages 2.24 through 2.2-22. To assist in your review, .the contracted Scope of Work for the MEA is available on the County website at http://www.buttecounly.net/dds/Planning/lasplumas/pmc mea proposal FINAL 2007-08-15.pdf. DDS would appreciate your department's 'comments by next Thursday, June 25th. We expect to return consolidated County comments to our consultant on June 26th, and to meet with external partners (applicants, LAFCO, Oroville staff, other service providers, etc.) to review the public draft as soon as possible after the administrative draft has been revised. (We also expect to review proposed roadwayimprovements with Oroville staff next week prior to finalizing the Traffic section and releasing the draft.) Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for further information about any aspect of this project. I would also be pleased.to arrange a discussion with our consultant if that would, be helpful. Thank you., Claudia Stuart Principal Planner - Special Projects Butte County Department of Development Services --7 County.Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 530-538-7604. Fax 530-538-77.85 Email: cstuartbuttecounty.net 6/25/2009 Page 1 of 1. . Stuart, Claudia From:. Edell; Stuart Sent: Wednesday; June 24, 2009 5:10 PM. To: Stuart, Claudia; Thomas, Chris Subject: FW: Las Plumas MEA forgot you the first time. From: Edell, :Stuart Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:09 PM To: Charles Rutter Cc: Crump, Mike; O'Brien,, Shawn; Rick WaIIs; Jared G. Hancock; 'Eric -Teitelma n' Subject: Las Plumas MEA For the typical structural sections of the roads, I would propose 5' AC over 14" AB for the four. lane Surface Street and 3" AC over 12" AB for all the other streets. Stuart Edell, P.E. Deputy. Director .:. . Butte County Public .Works . 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Tel 530.538.7266 Fax 530.538.7171 email sedello,buttecounty.net COUNTY OF, BUTTE E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: This'e-mail and any attachment thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use..of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this e-mail (or any attachments thereto) by other than the County of Butte or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any ..copies of this e-mail and any attachments thereto. -This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. 6/25/2009